Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-06/18/2008James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice~President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen - Bob Ghosio, Jr. Town H~I 53095Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NewYork 11971-0959 Telephone(631) 765-1892 Fax(631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Minutes Wednesday, June 18, 2008 6:00 PM RECI~IVED F;I~ 8EP 1 8 2008 Southoh? To~n Clerk Present were: James King, President Jill Doherty, Vice President Peggy Dickerson, Trustee Dave Bergen, Trustee Bob Ghosio, Trustee Lori Hulse, Town Attorney Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 at 6:00 PM WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM Southold. APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of March 19, 2008 TRUSTEE KING: Good evening, everyone. For those of you who don'1 know me, I'm Jim King. I have the honor of being chairman of this Board. I would like to introduce the rest of the folks here. To my far left is Trustee Dave Bergen; next to Dave is Peggy Dickerson; my co-chair, Jill Doherty; Lauren Standish is to my right, is our office manager and; Bob Ghosio is the fifth Trustee. And down in the end is Lori Hulse, the Assistant Town Attorney. She is our legal advisor for tonight. Wayne Galante records everything, so if you do have comments, please come up to the microphone and identify yourself so he can get it on the record. Do you want to set the field inspection for July 16, at eight o'clock in the morning? Board of Trustees 2 June 18, 2008 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: The next regular meeting will be the 23rd of July at 6:00 with a work session at 5:30. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So moved. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: I didn't have a chance to read the minutes of March yet. Did anybody else? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I did. Lauren, the only thing I found is with Beixedon, he has "Southold Environmental." It should be "Suffolk Environmental." TRUSTEE BERGEN: I read the March minutes and I had E-mailed Wayne some minor changes to them. So I was fine with them. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the March minutes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jim, the April minutes, I know we already received by E-maih I don't know if people had a chance to read them yet, but I already read them and sent my comments to Wayne on the April minutes. So I don't know if anybody else has. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I read the April minutes and I had one or two changes. TRUSTEE KING: I haven't seen them. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We'll wait on the April minutes. I. MONTHLY REPORT: TRUSTEE KING: The Trustees Monthly report for May, 2008. A check in the amount of $7,506.30 was forwarded to the Supervisor's office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: TRUSTEE KING: Public notices are posted on the Town Clerk's bulletin board for review. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: TRUSTEE KING: We have a number of state environmental quality reviews. Resolved that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VII Public Hearings section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, June 18, 2008, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations and are not subject to further review under SEQRA. They read as follows: Board of Trustees 3 June 18, 2008 Richard Johnson & Pamela Maino - SCTM#59-6-9 Kevin Gallagher - SCTM#70-10-62.1 Susan Magrino Dunning - SCTM#17-1-2.1 Arnold Blair - SCTM#111-10-15 Michael & Susan Jeffries - SCTM#1-2-11 Thomas & Andrew Zoitas - SCTM#-40-1-7 2000 Broadwaters LLC - SCTM#104-9-12 George Baldwin - SCTM#57-2-21 Shui Ching Chen- SCTM#59-6-5.1 Joseph & June lavarone - SCTM#86-6-4 Anne Renganeschi - SCTM#107-7-4 lan & Amanda Morris - SCTM#22-2-4 Anthony & Giustina lenna - SCTM#78-2-3 Joann Walker - SCTM~66-1-33 Strong's Marina, Inc. - SCTM#122-9-6.2 Bayview Pacific Ltd. c/o Patrick McCarthy - SCTM#77-3-1 Bruno Frankola - SCTM#71-1-19 Do I have a motion on the resolution on those? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) POSTPONEMENTS: TRUSTEE KING: We have some postponements. I'll go through them so nobody is sitting here waiting for something to come up that doesn't come up. Page four, number six, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of DON JAYAMAHA requests an Amendment to Permit #6437 to construct a fixed open walkway 4x70' with decking a minimum of 3.5 feet above vegetated grade, hinged ramp 3x20' and floating dock 6x20', and install two six-inch diameter (nominal) piles to secure the floating dock. Located: 243 Maiden Lane, Mattituck, has been postponed. Page seven, number 14, Patricia Moore on behalf of THOMAS & ANDREW ZOITAS requests a Wetland Permit to install an inground swimming pool, patio and landscaping within 100 feet from the top of the bluff, retain a 30 foot non-turf buffer and construct beach access stairs. Located: 6255 North Road, Greenport, has been postponed. And number 17, Docko Inc., on behalf of ROBERT MEYER requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to reconstruct 138 linear feet of 5.7' wide fixed wood pile and timber pier including ladders and four braced tie-off piles waterward of the high tide line. Located: Crescent Avenue, Fishers Island, has been postponed. Board of Trustees 4 June 18, 2008 Number 18, Ray Nemschick on behalf of STEIN FAMILY RESIDENCE TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to construct a one-story addition to the existing single-family dwelling, new front porch and a half-story addition with utility (1) toilet, (1) sink to existing one-story garage. Located: 2535 Cedar Lane, East Marion, has been postponed. And number 19, JMO Environmental on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND FERRY DISTRICT requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge an 80'x480' channel to -20 ALW. The resultant spoil (7,800 cubic yards of sand and cobble) will be disposed of at an island site upland disposal site. Located: Foot of Fox Lane, Fishers Island, has been postponed. IV RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: We'll go to resolutions and administrative permits. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number one is CHARLES LUYSTER requests an Administrative Permit to construct an 8x12' storage shed. Located: 1670 Leeton Drive, Southold. This was found exempt under the LWRP. I went out and looked at this. There was no problem with this. It was about 72 feet from the top of the bulkhead and everything looked fine. So unless there is any comments from the Board, I would like to make a motion to approve this one. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number two, THOMAS D. PROKOP requests an Administrative Permit to remove existing dead junipers and rotted wooden walkway, replace wooden walkway in different location, replant area with natural grasses and mulch. Located: 2245 Little Peconic Bay Lane, Southold. I went out and looked at this. He had to remove a concrete patio as per a DEC issue, and I had no problem with all the dead vegetation coming out. I met with him out there. The only thing I want to say is the walkway that he's proposed to come out here, he didn't give a width and I would like to, and I proposed to him a three-foot width walkway to him. He was fine with that. With that stipulation the walkway being three-feet wide, I would like to make a motion to approve this one. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number three, GUSTAVE J. WADE requests an Administrative Permit to remove approximately 48 Locust trees, approximately 150 Poison Ivy vines and place three inches of natural wood chips on the surface. Located: 1024 East Road, Cutchogue. We all looked at this and we got in a removal plan. I think there was a question as to the number of Locusts. The Poison Ivy is requesting to be removed around his dock so family members can Board of Trustees 5 June 18, 2008 get down safely to the dock area but I think there is a question on the Locust trees. You wanted to have them marked in some way, Jim? TRUSTEE KING: They were. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But you had a comment Monday night you wanted some restrictions. TRUSTEE KING: Just the Locust trees should be removed. There are some Cedars that should not be touched. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And the wild rose bush you had marked. Is this your handwriting? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, just this little thing here is mine. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There should be field notes on it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I didn't have a field notes sheet. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Since this is in front of me, I'll take this opportunity to make a point that this area has quite a bit of history to it. I believe it originally, going way, way back in history, was actually part of the marshland in this area. Over the years it was filled in with dredge spoil and the entire area has become sort of a dune/grassy area. My concern with removing so many of these Locust trees is I have been taking kids out here for the last twenty years and this entire area has sort of created its own habitat. Again, I have no problem with the dock or clearing a walkway to the dock area but I'm not inclined to approve removal of all the Locust trees. I think it's a habitat that's been established for a good fifteen, twenty years, and I would make a motion to deny this if it's going to be cutting of the Locusts. Just the poison ivy. So I'll make that motion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Can we have discussion first? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Do we have a second? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I believe this is all on this gentleman's private property and it is an upland area. It's not a public park. There is a public, I don't know if it's property owners or association beach next to it. And my understanding is that part is not going to be touched. The Locusts will take over that property and will inundate that property, making it unusable, and I feel the gentleman should have the right to remove the Locusts. I agree totally with the other Trustees out there when we were out for our field inspection, the other vegetation should remain, but the Locusts and poison ivy, of course, I feel should be able to come out of there. So myself, I feel that he should be able to take the Locusts down he had marked down there. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: In any other application, anything one-hundred feet from the wetlands we would discourage people from clearing, so in essence he's asking to clear our jurisdictional area. I see the purpose of the poison ivy. I don't see the purpose of the Locusts. And the Locusts, again, from the pictures we have here, and anybody that has been down there, it's just a very vegetated area and, again, any other applicant that would come in, we normally would create this as a buffer or keep it non-disturbance. Board of Trustees 6 June 18, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I was thinking, the Locusts, he wants an area here he could put woodchips and have as a sitting area. I think that's why he wanted to clear the Locusts in that area. It was not the entire piece of property, it was just in that area. That's why we went down there, and he had everything marked. So he didn't have all the Locusts marked on the preperty, just in the sitting area that he wants. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are you talking these Locusts marked here? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Have you had the opportunity to go down there since last week, Peggy?. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm looking at a map where he marked the Locusts. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And we all agreed when the map came out that was way too many Locusts. That's why when we went on field inspection he put ribbons on the ones he wanted out of there. So it's all that I thought we were considering for appreval tonight was just removing the ones with the ribbons on them. It's not the entire piece of preperty. It's not clear cutting the preperty. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just in this area here where the posts are. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: So it's not 48 Locusts then? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what the resolution says. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because that's what he originally applied for. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do we have a number or do we just have blue ribbons? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We didn't count how many he had marked. TRUSTEE KING: I believe the gentleman is here, if you want to ask him any questions. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Did you want to take down all the Locusts on the whole preperty or just the sitting area? MR. WADE: Just the ones marked with the blue tapes. Some of them are as thick as my finger. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If you could come up to the mic and intreduce yourself. MR. WADE: Good evening, Board members. Yes, the day I met with you folks down there I explained to you what area that I wanted to clean. Then I taped them with blue tapes last Wednesday, on your inspection day. Some of them are the thickness of my finger. Some of them, the thickness of my thumb. They are not indigenous to that property, ma'am. I beg to differ with you. When I bought that property back thirty years ago there was nothing on that property. Locusts spread with rhizomes under the greund. This is totally a weed tree. You would not want it in your backyard nor would I want it in my backyard. Just on my neglect, okay, I should have gone down there and pulled them out as they grew. I mean what I'm asking for here, okay, is a simple thing, to remove the Locusts that have inhabited my preperty. I have no intention of going near the water's edge or any other part of the property. I would like to re-create the use of my property, plain and simple. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How do you propose to remove the Locusts; cut them Board of Trustees 7 June 18, 2008 to grade? MR. WADE: No, you have to take them out by the roots, Jill, otherwise they continue to spread. Each one of these the Locusts, if it's the size of my thumb, it has ten or twelve feet roots. If it's the inch-and-a-half, some of these roots will go 50 feet. I want to take them out so I can get them out of the ground and put the mulch on top so I could have an area to use. Very simply stated. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Lauren, I'm just noticing there was an E-mail here from the Group for Cutchogue. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you could read that into the record. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Which I think is very relevant. With respect to the application of Mr. Wade, I believe there are several issues which should be resolved before this application is calendared for a meeting. Both on the application and the environmental assessment form the applicant misrepresents the location of the property. The property is not at the eastern terminus of East Road. There are two reasons why the applicant's property is an environmentally sensitive land unsuitable for any development. It is a beach, that there is no road access. I believe this was established when the former owner was in court in the '60s and '80s when he applied for a Trustee permit to build a house on the property. There was said to be a DEC permit to the Southold Town Board in granting a building permit, any hardship relating to the current state of the property is self inflicted. The ton of fill which Wade dumped on the beach have already caused serious, negative environmental impacts both on the beach and in the creek. If not for the dirt he dumped there, there would be no thorny bushes or Poison Ivy. The property is not in residential use, the land use in the vicinity of the property, the project is not residential and is open space and recreational. I believe the property is within DEC jurisdiction and any change in the character of the land use would require a DEC permit. If beaches in Southold Town are permitted to be covered with wood chips, that would certainly be a dramatic change for or esthetic resources, community and neighborhood character. The property is landscaped. It will no longer be open space but residential space. Next there will be lawn mowers and leaf blowers, et cetera. The dock was permitted so the property owner could not claim that Southold Town regulated against all use of the property. Such use should not be expanded. The applicant's property is a key location in relation to the significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat of Cutchogue Harbor and creeks. Hay Water Cove area including East Creek, Mud Creek and Broadway Cove consist of approximately 190 acres of salt marsh islands, mud flats, open waters and tidal creeks. It is connected by strong daily tides to the shallow open water area of Cutchogue Harbor of approximately 205 acres and also in the Horseshoe Cove-Meadow Beach area, an approximately 25 acre area including a 15-acre wetland preserve owned by the Nature Conservancy. To claim, as the applicant does, that there will be no controversy as to potential adverse impact is absurd. If Wade Board of Trustees 8 June 18, 2008 wants to restore the beach by removing the dirt and cleaning up the sand, it should be permitted. To permit him to further destroy the valuable natural character of this property would be a terrible mistake. Thank you for your courtesy and consideration. Signed, the Secretary of Cutchogue Group. MR. WADE: Can I just make a statement. I don't know what they are talking about as far as disturbing the beach. I have no intention of disturbing the beach, number one. And number two, my beach is not their beach. And I have no intention of disturbing their beach. They walk across my property to get to their beach, but that's okay. Needless to say, I mean this is an erroneous statement that they have made here about me disturbing the beach. I have no intention of disturbing any beach. I don't have a beach on my side. They have a beach on their side. My property is separated from their property. One thing has nothing to do with the other, Mrs. Dickerson. So I don't understand what this is all about. I mean this is just a smoke screen to throw up some kind of ridiculous statement here against my property and against my rights. I have rights just like any other land owner in the State of New York and in the Town of Southold. I pay taxes on this property. I have rights to use it. I'm not asking them for their beach rights and they should not have rights to use my property either. But they do. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: From this E-mail, aside from this that needed to be read into the record, I'll say that my motion stands, and in order for this to pass it needs to be passed by the full Board. So my motion stands. Mr. Ghosio seconds it, and now the other Board members can make their decision. TRUSTEE KING: So the motion is to deny. That's my understanding. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: And it was seconded. TRUSTEE GHO$10: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bob, do you second the motion? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, I did. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How many trees in total are you going to take out MR. WADE: I think there is 42 or 46 I mentioned when we met on the property. I think it's the same. If you count them up. Some of these things are the size of my finger. If you don't want to count them, it's 26. The other 20 that have popped up since we been there, it's 46 pieces. It's like they grow overnight. Tomorrow there will be 56 pieces there. It's the way Locusts grow. TRUSTEE KING: Mr. Wade, what kind of equipment are you going to use to pull them out? MR. WADE: A rubber tire machine that has a little backhoe attachment on it. Put a chain around the root and pick it up out of the ground. We are not moving any other, we are not disturbing, it's not an earth moving or earth shattering experience. Pulling these weed trees out is like pulling, you know. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If it was to be done under that method, would there be a bond posted to use the road in there? Board of Trustees 9 June 18, 2008 TRUSTEE KING: That's what I was going to suggest, yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm asking, Lori. MS. HULSE: There has to be. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I wanted to make sure the applicant was aware of that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What you normally do is see Peter Harris at Highway and do a bond with him. MR. WADE: Surely. I don't have a problem with that at all. I don't have a problem with anybody coming down there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They still do it this way, I think you write a check and he holds it and after he inspects it and it's fine, he gives you the check back. MR, WADE: Surely. I have no problem with that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's the way they used to do it. MR. WADE: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You'll have to talk to Peter Harris about it. MR. WADE: This machine, Jim, is about 48 inches wide on rubber treks. It's called a mini excavator. It has rubber treks on it. It doesn't even leave a footprint. It could run over my foot and it wouldn't hurt me. TRUSTEE KING: There is a motion to deny. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And a second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We'll do a roll. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Unless there is any further discussion. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I understand your reasoning and I understand your rights to your property, but I'm saying any other property we would look at, if someone was asking to remove this much vegetation, I know in the past we have considered our jurisdiction and within our jurisdiction we have required buffers and for people not to remove this type of vegetation, so. So just do a roll call. TRUSTEE KING: So there will be a roll call vote on this. All in favor of the motion to deny?. There is a motion to deny. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Aye. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No. TRUSTEE KING: I'll vote no. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Aye. TRUSTEE KING: So three nays and two ayes. TRUSTEE KING: The motion failed. There was a motion to deny and it failed. Anybody else want to make a motion? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Gus Wade to remove approximately 48 Locust trees and approximately 150 Poison Ivy vines and place three inches of natural wood chips on the surface as marked in the area he has on his survey and not to remove any Cedars and not to remove any of the wild rose bushes. MR. WADE: Rosa rugosa. I planted them there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There is another one. There was a rosa rugosa and there was another wild rose. There is no reason to take that out. But you had that marked. MR. WADE: Rosa multi-flora. Okay. Board of Trustees 10 June 18, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So just the Locusts and Poison Ivy and the wood chips. That's my motion. TRUSTEE KING: Where are the wood chips going? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have an approximate size of the area? MR. WADE: I would say it's probably a circle of about thirty feet, Jill, or thereabouts. TRUSTEE KING: Mostly right where the piles are? MR. WADE: Correct. That's the only place the Locusts grew. TRUSTEE KING: The only place to put wood chips is in that pile area. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do we want to include a pathway to that area, in other words, the area where the pilings are plus a pathway to that area; is there a need for wood chips on that or not a need? MR. WADE: I would like to keep the growth down with the wood chips, which is the simplest thing. It's natural. It's just, you know. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just trying to maker sure we are very clear on the area we are talking about the wood chips. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This includes a clearing of the path to the dock. MR. WADE: That's where the Poison Ivy is. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you anticipate putting wood chips down on that path to the dock? MR. WADE: Just a couple of feet wide to get to the dock, so we could walk on top of the wood chips. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So what Dave is saying is we should include the path. TRUSTEE KING: You don't want that to get too close to the dock. MR. WADE: By the way my, property has never been underwater since owned it, so it's not a fear of having that property flood. The property is 8.6 feet above average sea level. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would say maybe keep the wood chips in the 30-foot radius area and not have wood chips down to the dock, because as you walk, they go through. So just keep it in that area. MR. WADE: Surely. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Again, my motion is to clear the Poison Ivy, the Locusts, and put wood chips down in the 30-foot radius as marked on the survey and not clear any other plants; the rosa rugosa, the Cedars, rosa altema whatever. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? TRUSTEE KING: Condition it so there is a bond posted. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll add that. I'll add that. TRUSTEE KING: I would also like the office to be notified when you start the work so somebody can come down and make sure everything ~s done properly. Because there will be a lot of watch dogs. MR. WADE: Jim, I owned this property for 30 years. TRUSTEE KING: I want somebody to be there. I want to make sure this is done very selectively and that's where I'm coming from on this. MR. WADE: I agree wholeheartedly. TRUSTEE KING: Do we have a second? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. We do. Roll call vote. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Can I make a comment? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. Board of Trustees 11 June 18, 2008 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I want you to know, I do agree it's your property. You should be able to do what you want. The reason I seconded Trustee Dickerson's motion was because I did feel, like she said, there is a certain problem in consistency sometimes, and we have asked people to give us more buffers. I agree that the Poison Ivy needs to be removed and I also agree to that an awful lot of those Locusts need to be pulled out. Whether it's 48 or not, I don't know. But in an effort to be consistent, I wanted to hear a discussion on it. That's my only problem. TRUSTEE KING: Roll vote. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just want to add a comment. With regard to the consistency. This is a unique piece of property and to me it's not exactly the same as clearing a bank or other types of properties, that's why I feel that I made the motion I made. TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Bergen? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Aye TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Nay TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Doherty? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Aye. TRUSTEE KING: I'll vote aye. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Aye. MR. WADE: I would like to thank you Board members and I'll comply with your requests on anything you have to say. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. MR. WADE: Good evening. TRUSTEE KING: We can do four and five together. Numbers four and five, MICHAEL CARBONE requests an Administrative Permit to remove all stumps and plant Leyland Cypress trees along the seaward side of the water main easement. Located: 1330 North Bayview Road, Southold, and also 1380 Bayview Road, Southold. I believe there is a violation. Is there a violation, Lori, on this? MS. HULSE: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: We all went out and looked at it. I think the Board's feeling is there is to be no stump removal, just leave it alone. As far as the plantings -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They can grind the stumps and just keep them there. TRUSTEE KING: The stumps are down to ground level now. If they want to grind them further, they can. There is to be no disturbance tearing those stumps up. There is no need for it. As far as the trees, I'm not familiar with this type of tree. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Isn't it a taller tree, the Cypress tree? TRUSTEE KING: Do you know what they look like, Bob? The Leyland Cypress? TRUSTEE GHOSiO: Tall and conical. It's a conifer. They get tall. TRUSTEE KING: I think there was some thought that since this has all been cleared he really opened up kind of a nice vista to look down at the creek and if you plant something like a huge screening, there it goes again. I don't know. Board of Trustees 12 June 18, 2008 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Scott's Hilary's comments were they are kind of a more native species. TRUSTEE KING: Because this was all treed before, this whole corner, but they were big trees. If you look at some of these stumps, they were, you know, six, eight, ten inches. There was no vista before. I don't have a huge problem with it. But there is no need to tear all those stumps up. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Was there a fence, Jim? TRUSTEE KING: That's right. There's a fence right along the wetlands that needs to be removed. That's against the code. So I'll make a motion to approve this with the stipulation that the stumps are not to be removed. They can be ground down flush. And the goose fence is to be removed out of the wetland area. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number six, Frank Uellendahl, Architect, on behalf of EDWARD & CATHERINE FORTE requests an Administrative Permit to extend the existing structure landward. Located: 710 Truman's Path, East Marion. I went out and looked at this. The LWRP finds this exempt. All the proposed work is landward of the existing house and on the survey the architect measured the Trustee line as the water line and when I went out there, there is a wood retaining wall on the bank going down into Marion Lake, and I would take that wood retaining wall top of the bluff line and measure it from there, because it is pretty steep there. So the proposed construction is in our jurisdiction. So, as you said, it's all landward of the existing house and the front of the water side of the house is all, it's not yard, it's all planted and very well established. So I'll make a motion to approve the administrative permit to extend landward subject to extension to be put on the survey so we have a little bit better, because we just have a drawing, then we have the survey. If we could have this put on the survey, and drywells, leaders and gutters added to the whole entire house. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The next two, Young & Young on behalf of SARGON VINEYARDS, requesting an Administrative Permit to install a deer fence along the northern portion of the property. Located: 500 Soundview Drive, Orient; and Young & Young on behalf of VALLO BENJAMIN requesting an Administrative Permit for the as-built deer fence along the northern portion of the property. Located: 24315 Rt. 25, Orient. At this time if we consider approving these we would be approving -- this would be an approval against the building code Board of Trustees 13 June 18, 2008 and the zoning board, so I suggest that we table this and have them go to the zoning board first and see what they are going to appreve. That way they are not coming back and forth. So I would make a motion to table this Sargon Vineyards and Vallo Benjamin until they get zoning board appreval. TRUSTEE KING: Second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would like to make a comment on that. What you are doing, you said we don't want to send people back and forth. But we are sending people back and forth. They are starting with the Trustees, the Trustees are sending them to the zoning board and the zoning board is going to do their action and send them back to the Trustees. If we are going to table it I want to table it under the reason we don't want to send people back and forth. Because we are doing that. Myself, personally, I have no preblem preceeding with this and let them go to the zoning board and if the zoning board appreves it, fine, if they disappreve it, they have to come back again. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The first reason is we are approving something that is against the building code. That's the main reason I want to table it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I have a second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There was a vote made and it carried. TRUSTEE KING: It's tabled for the zoning board. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number nine, JMO Envirenmental Consulting on behalf of MARIE CLARKE ARTURI & EMANUEL ARTURI requests an Administrative Permit to remove and replace existing cedar siding on an existing 88 square foot bath house, to reconstruct in place an existing 4'3"x3' frame stair utilizing ACQ stringers and timber trek decking, to remove existing 88 square feet upper CCA deck and reconstruct existing lower CCA decks (124sf and 175sf) utilizing timber trek decking, framing to remain, to remove and replace two windows and one door and for the existing split-rail fence along both property lines. Located: 550 Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel. I went out and looked at this and the builder happened to be out there and he started the work not knowing the regulations. I kind of filled him in on the regulations of the Trustees. And basically part of what he's doing, the replacing the windows and shingles, are actually exempt from our new code. So that's what he's doing there. The decking, he's going to be replacing with Timber Tek and I asked him to make sure it's spaced currently underneath the decking and what -- I wouldn't even call it a cabana. It's more of a shed. It's very small. It's all sand underneath there. There is a shower inside there and the water goes right down into the sand. You could tell it's been there for a while and the only condition I would put on there is if there no further water use expansion on this, no toilet, no sink or anything; the showers, it's not even enclosed. It's just a shower head coming out of the wall, to rinse off. And so I don't know if any Board members have any questions on that. Board of Trustees 14 June 18, 2008 I did talk to Mr. Just about this because I was going to impose a ten foot non-turf buffer along the whole property but he informed me the applicant is going to be coming in to replace the bulkhead soon, so at that time we can address the non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Jill, I was going to mention since the 275 revision does exclude or exempt the removal or replacement of cedar siding, should that come out of the permit? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I kind of like to keep it in just because this was not a permitted structure before, so this kind of permits the structure. Does that make any sense or should we just -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's asking to remove or replace cedar siding. Or change the wording to permitting an existing bath house. It seems silly to have it in there if it's not permitted. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's a permit for -- TRUSTEE KING: Is this seaward off the bulkhead? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, it is, approximately how many feet, Glenn MR. JUST: Glenn Just, JMO Environmental Consulting, as agent for the applicant. It's got to be 15 feet. I would say it's about eight feet landward of the bulkhead and 20 feet landward of apparent high water. And I just want to point out it's a cold water shower. Very rudimentary. It's not heated or anything like that at all. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: They won't be in there long? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You could tell it's all been existing for quite a while. TRUSTEE KING: I think I been there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It is the same owner as the other one we went to further down Peconic Lane -- not that that makes a difference -- here you could see it's the decking and the bath house is back here. That's it. It's really not that big. That's the size of it. TRUSTEE KING: It's all existing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, you could see it's been there for a long time. So I'll make a motion to approve an administrative permit for an existing 88 square foot bath house to reconstruct inplace existing - I won't read the whole thing -- as applied as per the rest of it, with the condition that no further water expansion use inside, there is to be no sinks, no toilet, just a cold water shower, and the spacing of the Timber Trek -~ what is our policy, now, Jim, is it half-inch? TRUSTEE KING: 3/8ths. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 3/8ths of an inch so water can go through it and not run off. Do I have a second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) MR. JUST: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE KING: Before we go any further, I would like to recognize Jim Eckert is with the CAC. The Conservation Advisory Council, they go out and do the same inspections we do and give us their recommendations. Board of Trustees 15 June 18, 2008 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of LLOYD KAPLAN requests an Administrative Permit to maintenance trim the existing vegetation along the top of the bluff within the central section of the property. Located: 105 Soundview Avenue, Southold. We have all been there and all seen it and I don't think we had a big problem with it. I would like to make a motion to approve this application for the administrative permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number eleven, Twin Fork Landscape Contracting on behalf of JOINT INDUSTRY BOARD OF ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES request an Administrative Permit to trim the phragmites to one inch by hand, as needed. Located: 3800 Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue. I looked at this and I have no problem with this area. It's marked on the map. I make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Number 12, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - LAND PRESERVATION COMMITTEE requests an Administrative Permit to install approximately 40' of split-rail fence on Town Open Space property. Located: 70380 Main Road, Greenport. This is brought to us from the Land Preservation Committee. They have a problem of someone accessing town property, evidently, and they want to put a 40-foot split-rail fence across the opening so it can't be accessed. We were all out there. Any Board comment? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have a comment on this. I believe the owner of the property adjacent to this Town of Southold property is Mr. Costello, and Mr. Costeilo, could you step up to the microphone and introduce yourself? MR. COSTELLO: My name is John Costello and I was the owner of that property for a short period of time and it has since been transferred into a corporation. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is the corporation associated with Costello Marine? MR. COSTELLO: No, it's associated with myself. TRUSTEE BERGEN: My question is, are you willing to remove the fill that was put in to create that read and not use it as a entrance to your property any longer. MR. COSTELLO: Yes. Right now -- there was a misunderstanding, first of all, for the record, I would like to state that I thought that that read was owned by Mrs. Sills. She is 98-years old and has been using that access way for well over 80 years. I asked her if it was all right if I used that access way and she said she had no problem with it. That is why the access way was used. Then, recently, I had a letter from the Southold Town Preservation saying that they owned the read. I believe it's owned between the Land Trust, possibly the county and the Preservation Board. And the Board of Trustees 16 June 18, 2008 signs all on the adjacent pm perty am Land Trust but I will vacate that portion and I will remove the fill. Them is appmximately six to eight feet of fill that is encm aching upon the right-of-way. I will remove that, hopefully prior, and I also told Mm. Sills at the same time, any damage done to her mad would be repaired and she asked me to repair an area next to her mailbox, which I said I would. I intend to repair the ama and I'm hoping that the Pm servation Group will allow me to repair whatever damage is done to the road because Mm. Sills certainly deserves to have that use TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. My m commendation, since this is the Town of Southold that will be doing this work, in other words it's taxpayer money going toward this, and it sounds like Mr. Costello is willing to corm ct the action them, once that condition is corm cted I don't see the need for a post and mil fence any longer and for the taxpayem to have to pay for the labor and material. So I would like to see, I would like to m commend that this be tabled, giving Mr. Costello 30 days to do the repair work and then once that repair work is done, I'm not sum them will be a need for a fence any longer. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is 30 days long enough? MR. COSTELLO: It's plenty long enough. I just need the piece of equipment to be able to come back. I need a backhoe to do it. It will do less damage. The other thing is if Southold Town and the preservation group decides they want to put a split-mil fence them, I would certainly put it them at my own expense. I mean, if I'm not using the right-of-way, what difference does it make. It's not a lot of money. It's a little effort, But very little money. But I'll block it off. I could put a piling them and block it off. But if that's what they wish, that's fine, too. But I do want to prepare the mad and I have to get permission to do that. TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a pm blem with a permit for the fence. If they don't need to put a fence there, they don't have to. At least they have a permit to do it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can they put signage there? Is it less intrusive? TRUSTEE KING: 40 feet of split-rail doesn't cost a lot. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I agree with Jim. Give the permit. TRUSTEE KING: Right. And if they don't need it, let them do it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Let me clarify. I don't have a problem with a split-mil fence them either. I'm just trying to save the taxpayers payers. If Mr. Costello is willing to do the work, that's great. MS. HULSE: Now we have an existing violation on that pm perty that is outstanding and if there is any additional work being done I'll just request, I know it seems a little silly, but that they apply for a new permit to do that, given the fact they have an outstanding violation. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application for 40-foot of split-rail fence on the town open space property. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? Board of Trustees 17 June 18, 2008 (ALL AYES.) MS. HULSE: Just to clarify, if the Land Preservation Committee or someone from the town is going to consent to that and to mitigate, are you going to require him to come back for a permit or not? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's not, on the, it would not be on his property and I would -- MS. HULSE: Some of the work would with the fill. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This permit we just did was for the fence, not removing the fill. MS. HULSE: So that's not going to be part of the equation? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No. If the land preservation wants him to do the fence at his expense, I don't think he needs a permit from us to do that. MS. HULSE: I didn't know if there was going to be a possible -- TRUSTEE KING: Could it be part of taking care of the violation would be to remove the fill? MS. HULSE: I assume that's what the Trustees would have in mind and possibly revegetation. TRUSTEE KING: If that was the case I don't think he needs a permit to do it. MS. HULSE: No, I just don't want land preservation to be negotiating that. TRUSTEE KING: Part of the resolution of the violation should be taking care of business there. MS. HULSE: I didn't know if you were giving them authority to go ahead and negotiate with him. I didn't know if that was part of the equation. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No. Thank you for clarifying. V. RESOLUTIONS-MOORINGS/STAKE PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Number five, Resolutions Moorings and Stake Permits. The Board didn't have a problem with any of these so we are just going to lump them together and do it in one shot, so we don't have to go through them one at a time, and save a little time here. I'll make a motion to approve resolutions one through six for moorings and stake permits. They read as follows: Number one, ROBERT KOEBELE requests a Mooring Permit in Gull Pond for a nine-foot boat, replacing mooring #10. Access: Public. Number two, JOHN & CYNTHIA SWISKEY requests a Mooring Permit in Corey Creek for a 23' boat, replacing Mooring #69. Access: Private. Number three, BONNIE NAULT requests a Mooring Permit in East Creek for a 13' float, replacing Mooring #757. Access: Public. Number four, LES GAZZOLA requests a Mooring Permit in Corey Creek for a 17' boat, replacing Mooring #77. Access: Public. Number five, OLIVE HOWARD requests an Onshore/Offshore Stake Permit in West Creek for a boat no larger than 12 feet. Access: Public. And number six, BRUNO SEMON requests an Onshore/Offshore Stake Permit in Narrow River for a 19' boat, replacing Stake #23. Access: Public. Board of Trustees 18 June 18, 2008 MS. HULSE: This is a consent agenda, if anyone has any comments on any of them, they should speak now. (No response.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) VI. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS: TRUSTEE GHOSIO: DOUG KALUNAS requests an Amendment to Permit #1068 to repair 35' of the existing bulkhead. Located: 624 Osprey Nest Road, Greenport. I was out there last week. I did have some questions. MR. KALUNAS: Hi, how are you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I know you and I spoke the other day about it. On the drawing it shows that where that ramp is on the east side of the property, I guess it is? MR. KALUNAS: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And you were going to convert that, extend that bulkhead out, dght? MR. KALUNAS: Yes, that was your idea. It was very good. Instead of conforming with the land for the original bulkhead which is losing sand, it can go right across, about 31 feet. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Did you bring in a revised drawing? MR. KALUNAS: No, I just drew off of something that you requested. Can I approach? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Please. MR. KALUNAS: Going from here, here's the original bulkhead which is collapsing right here. I was going to follow this. But I also am going from here to there, 31 feet, and going straight across. This is completely falling part. This is in satisfactory condition. And it would be a little bulkhead, about five feet, and it would be plastic. TRUSTEE KING: This is the existing bulkhead now? MR. KALUNAS: This is a boat ramp here. This is sand and rocks piled up there. TRUSTEE KING: Where is the high water mark? MR. KALUNAS: High water mark is about three feet below the bulkhead. The bulkhead is five, five-and-a-half feet high. It's a very Iow bulkhead. It was actually put in 32 years ago. TRUSTEE KING: It's pretty difficult for that far out in front of the existing bulkhead. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's the only problem I had. What I had in mind was to do this as you go across here. I think that would be much more -- TRUSTEE KING: Inplace bulkhead replacement is exempt or consistent with LWRP but if you start jumping out that far, it's going to be found inconsistent with the LWRP. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So I'm suggesting we allow this to stay where it is and just come across here rather than do this whole thing; come across from here to here, tie it in and then it's pretty much consistent with everything we would normally want to do, which is Board of Trustees 19 June 18, 2008 then in fact pretty much nothing more than a replacement of what is already there. MR. KALUNAS: I'm very sensitive to the needs of the environment, always have been. TRUSTEE KING: I didn't look at this. MR. KALUNAS: And plant American Beach Grass behind that instead of natural turf. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Right. That's the other stipulation we would make, because there is no buffer there at all along the whole way, so. MR. KALUNAS: That, I would do. The only other, the existing bulkhead is a portion there which is 42 feet exactly. It's in good shape but there is some holes in this and is there some siltation. I have a guy that gave me an estimate on putting the sheathing up, half-inch or quarter inch, plastic, non-toxic, 4x8, on the outside, he said, and it would not harm any of the bottom or anything like that. Because we are not disturbing the land. It will just go over the existing bulkhead and seal some of the slight rock, you might say. TRUSTEE KING: I know the material you are talking about. We have seen it used. Yes. MR. KALUNAS: And it's by Richard Bonvenito. He's the one that would do it. I have their telephone number also. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You'll bring that along the whole bulkhead? MR. KALUNAS: Only in that portion. The other portion just to the west which is about 41 feet. It's just a face. TRUSTEE GHOSiO: Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) I would like to make a motion that we approve the request for an amendment to repair the 35 feet of existing bulkhead with the stipulation that the bulkhead be replaced pretty much inkind and inplace on the west end. Instead of coming out as you have indicated on the drawing, we would like to see it extend straight across to the east terminating at that pole is marked. So I'll ask you redo the drawing and also to approve 4x8 plastic sheathing to seal the bulkhead in that section. What did you say, 42 feet? MR. KALUNAS: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And ask you to notate that on the revised drawing as well. Pending receipt of that revised drawing an approval by the president I would offer that we approve with those stipulations. TRUSTEE KING: Did you say you were going to plant American Beach Grass there? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, and a ten foot non-turf buffer. MR. KALUNAS: Yes, it could be beach grass, rosa rugosa or American beach grass. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would just ask you give us a revised plan before we issue that. MR. KALUNAS: I'll do it right now. Thank you, Board members. Board of Trustees 20 June 18, 2008 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number two, Suffolk Environmental on behalf of BRUNO FRANKOLA requests an Amendment to Permit #5999 to construct an 8x16' deck with stairs to grade located 49' from the wetland boundary, and to extend the length of the two existing concrete retaining walls by ten feet each, located 53' and 70' from the wetland boundary. Located: 840 Northfield Lane, Southold. The Board went out and looked at this last month for a pre-submission inspection and the applicant has applied for exactly what the Board requested at that time. This has an inconsistency under the LWRP but that was given back in 1997 for the original application for the permit, so that inconsistency was addressed when the permit was approved, in I believe April of 1997, and the CAC went out and they resolved to support the amendment of the application. So if there is no decision from Board members I would -- TRUSTEE KING: You said 19977 It could not have been that long ago. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry. 2007. Thank you. So I would like to make a motion to approve this. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Patricia Moore on behalf of JOANN WALKER requests an Amendment to Permit #6470 to eliminate the proposed pool deck, change the end of the proposed addition to the dwelling from round to square, and inkind/inplace repair of the existing beach stairs, beach cabana, wood platform and roof over wood platform. Located: 290 Town Harbor Terrace, Southold. MS. MOORE: Good evening. Patdcia Moore. This apparently had permits in the past. The parts of it, at one time the addition was going to be round then they switched it back to square, then back to round, and now we are back to square. So I lost track which one is the last one. But we have the addition on the east side of the building is as shown on the plans. They have also reduced the size of the pool and eliminated the decking that was going to be around the pool. She prefers to have it more natural. So that's being submitted so it's consistent with the plan that will ultimately be developed. The beach structures are in perfectly good condition, um, I think they are just going to be painted and maintained as they have been, since the '70s, I think vintage wise, so I wanted to be sure that everything was showing on the permit. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This application has the same reference to the inconsistency of the LWRP. It is from the original and the original, again, permit, addressed many of those issues that we had 15-foot non-turf buffer, the drainage system, drywells, so that was all addressed prior. And also to even further that consistency you've removed the application for the pool. MS. MOORE: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So with all that it's brought into consistency, even though this cabana would not ideally be consistent with LWRP, it is existing. We would have a condition that there be no further expansion, no electric, no plumbing, no habitation of this cabana. Board of Trustees 21 June 18, 2008 MS. MOORE: There is already electricity but there is absolutely no habitation. The cabana actually opens up. It's an open structure in the summer. So it just seals up like a storage shed and then opens up with, it has electricity in it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We'll make it a condition there be no further expansion and no habitation MS. MOORE: Habitation is fine. That was not there. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All that's on the survey that was applied for in '06 will be continued on this permit and also there seems to have been a request for the dimensions of the existing structure, so it was not measured when you were out there? I don't see it. MS. MOORE: Are you talking about -- which one? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There is a notation hem. MS. MOORE: Yes, the staff asked for exact dimensions of the beach structures and I provided those. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, I'm just saying they are hem. A little fuzzy but they are here. Am them any other Board comments on this? (No response.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Being no further comments, I'll make a motion to approve as stipulated. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) MS. MOORE: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number four, Patricia Moore on behalf of JAMIE NANCY SANTIAGO requests an Amendment to Permit #6654 to install pavers are und the proposed swimming pool rather than decking and install a 10xl 8' fish pond. Located: 3745 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. We have all been out to this property several times and I think we am aware of the fish pond, where it is, we have no problem with that. And we don't have a problem with the pavers as opposed to the decking. So unless them is comment, I'll make a motion to approve as submitted, as applied for. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MS. MOORE: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Number five En-Consultants on behalf of ANTHONY & GIUSTINA IENNA requests an Amendment to Permit #2069 to replace the existing dock with a fixed timber dock consisting of a 3x21' fixed catwalk, 3x14' hinged romp and 6x16 float secured by two six-inch diameter pilings. Located: 500 Glenn Road, Southold. We went out and took a look at this. I think there were some discussions on perhaps there should have been a full application. But the gentleman came into the office and at that time was told we would do this with an amendment. So I would like to stay with the amendment. I think it's simple enough. I had some -- Rob, do you want to come to the mic? I had some discussions with Rob Herman about this. We would like to see that catwalk moved. I guess it would be to the west. Board of Trustees 22 June 18, 2008 MR. HERMAN: Yes. Rob Herman, En-Consultants. I relayed that to Dr. lenna. He didn't have a problem with it. Even the angle, we were just trying to stay in line with what the previous structure was. So I'm not sure that the float would even need to move. We may be able to just rotate it a bit. I think what you were driving at is the way the catwalk exists now it's dght up against bacharus and other vegetation and there is a whole clearing right next to it. So probably if we walk it over one catwalk width or just rotated it. So Dr. lenna didn't have a problem with that so i could just go back and revise the plan accordingly just to keep it in that cleared area. I don't see that as a problem. TRUSTEE KING: When you talk to him I would recommend, there is an aluminum boat to the left of the catwalk. It's full of water and it's full of mosquitos. Just flip it upside down. It is loaded with -- it's one of those. I tried, there is a little plug in the back but it's stuffed up. You can't even unplug it. MR. HERMAN: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: With that change of plans, moving the dock to the side, away from that vegetation, I would like to recommend approval of this as submitted with that change. MR. HERMAN: And I could get you the revised plans. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Seven, eight, nine, ten and eleven, we have no problem with. We can lump those. Right through 15. The next seven through 15 we can group together. TRUSTEE KING: So what we'll do in this next batch, numbers seven through 15, there doesn't seem to be a problem with any of these. I'll make a motion to approve them in one lump sum. They read as follows: ROBERT O'BRIEN requests a One-Year Extension to Permit ~6420A, as issued on August 23, 2006. Located: 1955 Truman's Path, East Marion. Number eight, JOHN R. CORBLEY, requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #6405, as issued on July 19, 2006, Located: 680 Mason Drive, Cutchogue. Number nine, ROBERT NOYES, requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #6410 and Coastal Erosion Permit ~6410C, as issued on July 19, 2006. Located: East End Road, Fishers Island. Number ten, LEO & VIRGINIA ALESSI, request the last One-Year Extension to Permit #6190 as issued on August 24, 2005. Located: 1700 Cedar Point Drive East, Southold. Number 11, LI SOUND OYSTER, LLC, requests the last One-Year Extension to Permit #6157 as issued on July 20, 2005, and amended on October 19, 2005. Located: 1240 Love Lane, Mattituck. Board of Trustees 23 June 18, 2008 Number 12, Regi Weile, Architect on behalf of IRWIN SEIGEL requests a One-Year Extension to Permit ~6421 as issued on August 23, 2006. Located: 17327 Main Road, East Marion. Number 13, Samuels & Steelman Architect on behalf of STEVEN BENFIELD & SHEILA PATEL requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #6435 as issued on August 23, 2006. Located: 19965 Soundview Avenue, Southold. Number 14, HP Broom on behalf of NOL, LLC, requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #6432 as issued on August 23, 2006, and Amended on March 19, 2008. Located: Private Road, Fishers Island. And Number 15, Gary F. Olsen Esq., on behalf of the ESTATE OF EILEEN O. GOLDNER requests the last One-Year extension to Permit ~6160 as issued on July 20, 2005. Located: 435 Bay Home Road, Southold. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Number 16, William Goggins on behalf of PATRIClA GILCHRIST MANClNO requests the last One-Year Extension to Permit #6182 as issued on August 24, 2005. Located: 15 Fourth Street, New Suffolk. We went down there. The feeling of the Board was the two center groins, the two short groins (perusing.) We were down there. We felt the two short groins should not be rebuilt. They are really not doing anything. That would be the only change I would make to that. This would be the last one-year extension on this permit. With that modification. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They can let them remain. TRUSTEE KING: They don't have to remove them, no. Let them remain. They just can't be rebuilt. That's my motion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) The two short groins they can leave. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Part of the reason we don't feel they need to be rebuilt is they are very close together and the two other groins would be sufficient. They can be left. They don't have to be removed. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off our regular hearing and on to our public hearings. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of SUSAN MAGRINO DUNNING requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #6257 and Board of Trustees 24 June 18, 2008 Coastal Erosion Permit fl6257C to demolish the existing single-family dwelling and rear deck/steps, and construct a new single-family dwelling, rear decking, swimming pool and hot tub, located: 925 Stephenson's Road, Orient. The Board was out there last week. We all saw it. The CAC did not make an inspection therefore no recommendation was made. And LWRP determined on the original permit that it was, or the original application, to be consistent. Is there anybody here who would like to address this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant. This is a pretty simple matter. We received permits from you folks for actually a much larger house. We are demolishing a house with a deck that is currently seaward of the coastal erosion hazard line. We are moving it landward of the coastal erosion hazard line and we are downsizing over what was previously permitted by this Board. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Some of the comments that were made while we were out there doing an inspection is we noticed there are eight signs on the beach. MR. ANDERSON: Eight signs? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, on the beach frontage there. TRUSTEE KING: Saying it's a private beach. No trespassing. MR. ANDERSON: I don't think it's a private beach. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You might want to remove those signs. MR. ANDERSON: They were put up by the neighbors, this fellow was telling me. MR. LUKEMEN: Cy Lukemen. They were not put up by the owner. I'll see that they come down. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We would appreciate the signs get taken down. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't know how they got there but if you could take those signs down. Aside from that I don't think the Board had any particular problem with the project, right? Any questions, comments? (No response.) I would make a motion that we approve this application for the amendment. I'll make a motion we close this hearing first. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion we approve this application as submitted. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number two SOPHIE LATHAM & PRISCILLA JAMIESON request a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to rebuild the existing jetty and repair the existing bulkhead. Located: 2180 Peter's Neck Road, Orient. The Board went out and looked at this project in May. The applicant came in and we talked about it extensively at the last hearing. We tabled it because we had erred. We had not taken measurements of the jetty that is the eastern end of the property that they were asking to rebuild. So I just want to go over Board of Trustees 25 June 18, 2008 briefly, is the applicant here tonight? (No response.) Okay. Just so we have it on the record, what we talked about last time. The groin to the western part of the property, we were asking not to be rebuilt. And the wood bulkhead that they originally asked for 380 feet; 200 feet of it starting from the western edge of the property, we had talked about approving. The rest of that bulkhead we are willing to permit in but there is no need to approve rebuilding it because it's all completely buried and the beach is really built up tremendously in front of it so the bulkhead is not functioning at all. So the applicant, as I recall, last month, didn't have a problem with that. And that got us to the groin that is listed as a wood jetty on the eastern part of the property. We went out and measured that and we wish to stipulate that we will approve a Iow profile groin no more than 18 inches above grade on the down drift side, which was the eastern side, and it was approximately 65 feet from the exposed wooden piling that is there, on the landward end. So there is a landward end of that groin that has an exposed piling standing up probably a foot or so higher than the other pilings. So we took the measurement from there and we are willing to approve 65 feet from that exposed piling. This was to be done with vinyl sheathing and, again, to be Iow profile. And that's all the comments I have in here. It was exempt under LWRP and the CAC resolved not to support the application in May because it was incomplete, recommending additional information regarding the length and design of the jetty. So we have now hopefully addressed that. Are there any comments from the audience on this application? (No response.) Not seeing any, are there any comments from the Board on this application? (No response.) If there are no comments, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application as stated, stipulating that only 200 feet of the bulkhead will be approved to be replaced starting from the western end, what is marked here as western jetty, it's actually a groin, but that will not be replaced. And at the eastern end what is referred to as the wood jetty, actually a groin, that that will be replaced as a Iow profile no more than 18 inches above grade on the down drift or eastern side, and that we we'll approve 65 feet starting from the most landward exposed piling, 65 feet in length. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) Board of Trustees 26 June 18, 2008 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number three, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of STEVEN & SEVGI UYANIK request a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to remove partial remains of existing bulkhead. Regrade existing bank to top of bluff, construct 88 feet of new bulkhead in place; eight-foot return on west end and 16-foot return on east end. Remove all existing rocks encountered during construction and replace as armoring at base of new bulkhead upon completion. Remove existing platform and stairway to beach. Construct new 10x16' upper deck; 10x12' lower deck and three-foot wide stairways to beach in new location. Provide ten-foot wide non-turf buffer zone behind new bulkhead, revegetate with Cape American Beach Grass, install erosion control geometric design nylon matting "Enkamat" 7010 or equal from base of bluff to top of bluff and revegetate slope with a combination of Bayberry, Rosa Virginia and Beach Plum plantings. Located: 55055 North Road, Southold. We looked at this a couple of times. Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? MR. COSTELLO: Yes, my name is John Costello. We are the agents for the Uyanik's on this bulkhead. It's a replacement of an existing portion of a bulkhead retaining wall on the property. And I just, earlier in the evening, I gave a copy of what was discussed at the meeting we had onsite. We eliminated both decks, were eliminated from this project. And the concern, what we did is confer with the surveyor the rock that is on this, the original drawing, is not in the proper location. It is closer to the property line and it is larger. All he has is notes. They don't survey the rock because of its size. What we did is came up with a drawing, additional drawings and I submitted them, and showing the elimination of the decks and putting in 32 square foot, one at the top as an entry and one at the base of the stairway down to the bulkhead. We also concluded that the existing large boulder, we will stop the bulkhead behind that large boulder as suggested, and put in a small five-foot return with no backing system, so that you do not excavate any more than necessary in order to keep the vegetation in that area the best you can. The bulkhead on the west side of the boulder, nothing will be done. It will be completed behind the boulder. So that we do not bother any of the vegetation or potential vegetation on the adjoining property. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay. I have a CAC report here that does not support the application because of the high energy shoreline resulting in serious erosion, continuing hardening of the shoreline will steepen the beach and accelerate the beach down current of the less protected bluffs. If anyone concurs with that. LWRP is consistent, although this was May's LWRP. The proposed action is not in compliance with the following. Are the decks still proposed as such? MR. COSTELLO: No, just a 32 square foot entry deck and a 32 at the conclusion of the stairway. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay. And LWRP also states the proposed action Board of Trustees 27 June 18, 2008 is not in compliance with the removal of the existing rocks encountered during construction and regrading of the existing bank at the top of the bluff. Are there any other comments? MR. COSTELLO: I would like to make one additional point. The only rocks that would be placed landward of the proposed bulkhead would be the rocks encountered in the existing bulkhead line. Anything that we encounter that is there now beneath the surface or on top of the surface will be placed immediately in front of the sheathing to armor, to some minor degree, the bulkhead. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are there any other comments from the audience? (No response.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: I think they addressed just about everything we talked about in the field, that I could think of. My main concern is no disturbance between that huge boulder. They took care of that. That's my main concern. The size of the platforms have been downsized to meet the cede. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any comments, Bob? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm still having difficulty with the vegetated bluff as it is. I thought there was more discussion about that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think overall the plan is pretty good. He's trying to save the bluff and the vegetation is there is to be put back. I think we discussed that. I happen to think that putting the boulders in front of the bulkhead is better than not putting the boulders in front of the bulkhead, to try to save the bluff. TRUSTEE KING: I think it's in the cede any bulkheads in the Sound have to be armored with stone anyway. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree with you, Jim. TRUSTEE KING: If these are stones that are buried in the back that have to be removed to put the bulkhead in, it's not like you're taking stones from the beach to put the bulkhead in. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Right. I seen a lot of those homes over there getting pounded in some of these storms and the vegetation will get wiped out anyway if we don't do something to protect it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Our consistency is these boulders are not -- TRUSTEE KING: They are actually buried in the bank. They are not part of the natural stone from the beach. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think, what I'm stuck on is Scott Hilary's comments is whether you were using them or not using them, they could still be removed. So you are not removing them from the position they are in at all. I'm just remembering Scott's comment. MR. COSTELLO: I'm not removing them from the beach. Only what is encountered. And they will be encountered. There are rocks underneath that soil, in the bulkhead line. TRUSTEE KING: Correct me if I'm wrong, John, my understanding is you have to remove the stones in order to put the bulkhead in? MR. COSTELLO: Yes, I do. When I excavate, whatever stones -- there will be stones. And the those encountered will be placed on the offshore side of the bulkhead as armor. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay. I'll make a motion to close the headng. Board of Trustees 28 June 18, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the application for the Uyanik's as stated. TRUSTEE KING: No, not as stated. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: With a change of instead of constructing the upper deck it would be a 32-square foot platform and the lower deck will be 32-square foot platform instead of decking, instead of part of the stairs. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That are part of the stairs. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make that motion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I was trying to address the inconsistency that we are mitigating the LWRP because the rocks will be remaining and if they are removed because of construction, they'll be placed in front of. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And by bringing it to 32-square foot brings it into consistency. TRUSTEE KING: There is a ten-foot non-turf buffer at the top, also, right? Which is not there now. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's my motion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second all that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number four, En-Consultants, on behalf of lAN & AMANDA MORRIS requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit for the pre-existing 16.8x17.8' attached deck; pre-existing 11.3x14.4' deck; and pre-existing timber stairs and platforms on the bluff. Located: 1595 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion. We looked at this last field inspection. It's obviously been there a while and it is inconsistent with LWRP. It was basically the platforms are on the bluff that is not consistent with our current code. But as we stated, it's all pre-existing. My only comment we have when we were out there is that if this was to be rebuilt, it would have to be rebuilt to the current code at that time. So it would have to be reduced in size if it was to be rebuilt. MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of Eh-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. I'll just respond quickly to both of those. Lori can correct me if I'm wrong, but the applications that require review under LWRP have to constitute an application pursuant to Chapter 268. There is no application proposed here. We are asking you to issue a formal permit for pre-existing structure. But actually any determination of inconsistency by the Planning Board on this application would be incorrect and improper. So I want the record to show that unless Lori corrects me. There is no action being proposed. With respect to the other comment, I mean it's really no forum for that at the moment because we are not proposing to reconstruct it, but these are legally pre-existing structures so I would think that the Morris' would have the right to maintain them. Board of Trustees 29 June 18, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MR. HERMAN: If they came back to reconstruct them, that the Board would also consider to let them to reconstruct them as they've existed now for four decades. Again, that discussion is for other time but I don't want to forfeit any rights as part of this process. In other words, what is happening here is it's an unusual application but I think it's one that the Board will begin to see more often. This is a result of a transfer of land and the new owners want to ensure that the permits that are legally pre-existing for formally recognized as such. Obviously the Board doesn't grandfather structures anymore, but the I think the Board will start to see this more often as people get a little smarter about making sure that things other than the dwellings are legally permitted. So we are going back to Building Department for the portion of this work that would have required a building permit. Obviously this work would not have required Trustee permits at the time they were implemented. That's all we are asking the Board to speak to right now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. We understand it's pre-existing and nonconforming. We do get a lot of them and we do tend to permit them, but we would like to take the opportunity to say that if it's going to be a total reconstruction in the future that of course they would have to come back to us and we would take that time to bring it into code as much as possible. MR. HERMAN: In saying that you are suggesting you would try to do something that can't be done. To bring the structure into code it would have to be set back across the road. I don't think the Board can stipulate that now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's why I say we try to. Square footage wise, make it smaller. MR. HERMAN: I recognize that but I would object to that being a stipulation in the permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. Any comments from the Board? MS. HULSE: He's correct on the LWRP assessment. There is no activity, so is there no action. MR. HERMAN: Thank you, Lori. TRUSTEE KING: That's one for Rob. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Would anyone else like to speak on this application? (No response.) Any comments from the Board? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted for lan and Amanda Morris. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) Board of Trustees 30 June 18, 2008 MR. HERMAN: Thank you TRUSTEE KING: Folks, we'll take a little break here. (After a brief recess, these proceedings continue as follows.) WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Folks, we'll get going again. Number one, under wetland permits, STACY SHEPPARD requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 49' jetty. Located: 710 Park Avenue Extension, Mattituck. I still I think I'm probably as confused as you are on this thing. Rather than permit the existing jetty I would rather permit a new Iow profile groin in its place. I think that's the way to go. it cleans the whole thing up. It's consistent with LWRP. This is an area that houses were built, here many years ago. It's a complete groin field. It's a really erosion problem here and I think it's prudent for to us approve this groin. I think it will improve the situation. I talked to your neighbor Mr. Drum before he passed away and told him this is the thing he should do also. Maybe down the read the family will get in it, because I know what a problem you have there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I want to note this was tabled from last month because we didn't have the LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: For me it's kind of a no brainer, if you look at the location MS. SHEPPARD: That means I have to build a new jetty then? TRUSTEE KING: You have a permit to build a new one when the time comes, yes. What's there is there. I think you would be much further ahead to go ahead and do this. I think it will help you out a lot. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we want her to remove the pieces that she put up? TRUSTEE KING: There is very little showing now. MR. WICKHAM: My name is Jay Wickham. The pieces were gone six months after. The ice took them out. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So pretty much what is there was added -- TRUSTEE KING: It's not a lot there. That's why I say -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what the violation was for. I don't know if we needed to have her remove that. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it's necessary at this point. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have pictures taken 5/22. It doesn't show much left. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments from the audience? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the new Iow profile groin as per the plans submitted on April 8, 2008. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. Board of Trustees 31 June 18, 2008 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MS. SHEPPARD: Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: ARNOLD BLAIR requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built log gazebo and to revegetate a cleared area. Located: 4660 Vanston Road, Cutchogue. Lauren, did we get an LWRP on this? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I spoke to Scott this afternoon. He said he couldn't get that one done. There were a few he couldn't get done. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I don't believe Mr. Blair is here because it was so minor I didn't feel it was necessary. Am I going to -- if we don't have an LVVRP. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When I spoke to Scott Hilary and the LWRP coordinator today he mentioned there was other structures in that area that he was not sure that had approvals, and I said I was not familiar because I had not gone out to the site. So he mentioned that. I don't see any in this picture. Were there other structures in that area that might need a permit? I mean I know that's not in the application here. He just mentioned that was a concern. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If there is no LWRP then we don't address it. So am I tabling it or? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We could open the hearing and table it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's already been opened and there is nobody here. So I'll make a motion to table this application and wait for the LWRP review. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number three, Suffolk environmental Consulting on behalf of KEVlN GALLAGNER requests a Wetland Permit to install a Bio-Log system (with fill and native plantings) within two separate areas along the southern shoreline of subject property in order to prevent any further erosion thereon. Located: 40 Beechwood Lane, Southold. The LWRP has found this to be consistent. CAC resolved to support the application with the condition that work is conducted within the general shoreline and there is no further encroachment into the water. The Board was out there last week and I don't have any comments from the field inspection so, are there any comments from the audience? Would anybody like to speak to this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant, here to answer any questions you may have. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any questions from the Board? (No response.) I think we were all in support of it. TRUSTEE KING: I think everybody supported it but the applicant's Board of Trustees 32 June 18, 2008 wife. She doesn't want this approved MR. ANDERSON: Let me tell you what happened. TRUSTEE KING: She was adamant. I want what they got over there. MR. ANDERSON: Let me tell you what happened. We came before you on this almost seven or eight months ago, I'll say, and that was, in my opinion, that's what should have been there. We filed with the DEC. DEC came back that we want you to use something called willow whips. I said what the heck are those. So I have been chasing Karen for all of that six or eight months on Willow Whips and we finally flushed out there was no such thing as Willow Whips. It was just made up. So this was the only thing I could, and I don't know that this will work, I don't know if it's preferable, so we made this application. And now DEC is saying, well, we don't think you should be able to protect your property at all. So I'm hopefully going on obtain this permit file with them and ask them to sort of wake up and regulate this in a reasonable fashion because I think people have certainly some right to protect their property. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When we were out there Mr. Gallagher said he does get some wave action there and that's what he feels is causing this. I don't really know about the Bio-Log system but I kind of looked into it a little bit this past couple of days and from what I see it works great when there is no wave action. But when there is some wave action, Bio-Logs are degradable. So eventually that will go and if the plantings don't take, he'll have the same problem again. MR. ANDERSON: Right. Well, what we do in these cases -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know how long that process takes, though. MR. ANDERSON: I know so little about the environment these days and what we do is when we are confronted with these problems I say okay, we'll do it your way and when it fails, we will have exhausted that alternative, you know. And that's, unfortunately, that's what happens. So my attitude is we'll try it, we'll plant it up very densely. If it works, great. If it doesn't, then we'll have to revisit the problem. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can plant right through that, right? MR. ANDERSON; Yes, you can. And we've had mixed successes, is really the truth. The open part of that creek, if you look out you see it's all very open in front of him, so a southwest wind will generate winds that directly, you know, hit him head on, and we think that's what has caused this. So we do the best we can and see how it works out and if we have to revisit it, that's what we'll do. If we do nothing, I think it will get worse. And honestly, they are losing marsh by doing it this way. Because I don't see the benefit of having land which is, let's call it high marsh, collapsing into the sea and becoming a sand bar. I don't see how that benefits the environment, personally. But we'll see. Sometimes people, with your permit, we'll persist and see how it works out. TRUSTEE KING: Any thoughts of a Iow sill bulkhead there? MR. ANDERSON: I'm sure they would be happy to do that. TRUSTEE KING: We did one down west of Wells Creek. Bob Keith. As Board of Trustees 33 June 18, 2008 a matter of fact Karen Grolick designed it and it worked out very well. MR. ANDERSON: What application was that; do you know? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Bob Keith in Mattituck. Meadow Beach. TRUSTEE KING: Scollard (sic) and Keith. Two neighbors. There was an erosion problem with the bog there. MR. MCGREEVY: See me after I'll tell you where it is. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's at the entrance of Deep Hole Creek. MR. MCGREEVY: I'll tell you how to get there. TRUSTEE KING: You may want to take a look at something like that. MR. ANDERSON: I think that's a better, to me, that would be a better solution than what I'm even proposing today. TRUSTEE KING: I know this is what was done down there and it worked out very well. MR. ANDERSON: And it's called Scollard and Keith. TRUSTEE KING: Those were the people, yes, next door neighbors. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: CAC also recommended that the use of a Iow sill bulkhead be done to attempt to prevent erosion. TRUSTEE KING: Because then you plant behind it with spartina. It comes out pretty nice. MR. ANDERSON: I don't mean to drag this out, but -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Call me. It's right around the corner from my house. MR. ANDERSON: Why don't we do this. You could approve it if you wish. Maybe you want table it. I don't what you want to do. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I suggest we move on it and if you come back -- TRUSTEE KING: If you get something else, we'll amend it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Or if it's a totally different project you might have to -- MR. ANDERSON: I just want to find a solution is all I want to do. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments or concerns? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as stated on number three for Kevin Gallagher. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE KING: Talk to Rob Herman because he was the consultant on those two. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number four, McCarthy Management on behalf of BAYVlEW PACIFIC LTD, CIO PATRICK MCCARTHY requests a Wetland Permit to remove the enclosed porch attached to the existing dwelling and construct an 18x34.9' addition in same location and a 15x34.9' deck. Located: 1100 Pine Avenue, Southold. The Board did go out and look at this. This was found inconsistent under LWRP because of the proposed setback where it's 56 from the tidal boundary and also under the construction Board of Trustees 34 June 18, 2008 standards of our code 275-11, specifically paragraph three, for new or remodeled homes cannot be situated or modified so that I they project closer to the wetland boundary than homes on either side of the subject lot. The CAC, I believe, did not make an inspection however the council would not support any further encroachment to the water. Is there anybody here to here speak on behalf of this application? MR. MCCARTHY: Good evening, Tom McCarthy, McCarthy Management, on behalf of the applicant. We understand your concern about the going closer to the water than any of the adjoining properties. I would just like to state for the record that the map of Goose Bay Estates was an old file map subdivision done in 1934 and filed within the Office of the County Clerk. So the adjacent properties to the west are all consistent in size, development and nature to this application, and we are patterning our application consistent with properties to the west. To the east was developed at a different point in time. They are larger properties and those properties afford the other homeowners that are there different abilities to have different setbacks. The adjacent property to the east is about an acre and a quarter. And the other properties that are in this neighborhood to the west are a third of an acre to perhaps half acre at best. What the applicant has done at his expense at this point in time has moved forward and we have prepared some documentation that I would like to give to the Board regarding the adjacent properties to the east, the next four properties on Oak Avenue in Goose Bay Estates that are similarly situated. We have setbacks for the houses from the property lines as well as the setbacks from patios or decks that front these houses adjacent to, that reach out to the north, to the property line. (Board members perusing). These are the average setbacks of the houses and average setbacks of the patios. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What did the applicant just submit? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He submitted the properties to the west, the footprint and the patios and the distance from the street. MR. MCCARTHY: The average setback of the four homes to the east, the average setback of the houses to the property line to the north is 56.2 feet. Our application proposes a 59.1 foot setback, so greater than the average of the four houses to the east that are similarly situated. Additionally, the setbacks of their decks and patios that face the water where everyone spends a majority of their time, that average is 42.3 feet. We have come in behind that average of 44.4 feet. So we are looking for something less than the average of what happens to be in the immediate vicinity of this application. Additionally, for the record, the next parcel to the east on the other side of Pine Avenue has a 32 foot setback for the deck to its northerly property line. We are certainly not out in front of that. Our application proposes a 44 foot setback at its closest point. Additionally, the property line at Goose Creek, this is not Board of Trustees 35 June 18, 2008 a rectangular property, so the setback increases the further east you go. So it increases another eight feet as you travel away from that closest point. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have a drawing showing the house to the east in comparison to this? MR. MCCARTHY: I don't have one at this time. I can supplement the application with that. The property to the east is setback, I would say that the closest structure is a retaining wall for a pool. That is somewhere between 75 and 100 feet back. I have a letter I would like to offer into the record from that owner. (Handing). TRUSTEE BERGEN: So everybody knows, letters on applications are due the Monday before the hearing. So letters would have been due this past Monday for anything to be included in the record for this particular hearing. MR. MCCARTHY: I apologize. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's okay. MR. MCCARTHY: The synopsis of the letter is stating there is no objection to the proposed work that was mentioned in the application or any modification the Board deems necessary. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I have here is an aerial photograph that was done as part of the LWRP evaluation and what we have done when we have gone out and looked at applications, we have done line of sight to neighboring properties. And this is what we did on yours. We went out and stood at the edge of the proposed structure; the seaward edge of the proposed structure and looked to the properties both to the east and to the west and to our eye, your proposed structure was going to go out farther, in other words project seaward of those other two properties. We now have this aerial photograph and it shows the same thing. You are right in that the shoreline, as you go toward the east, moves out, so there is, when you are measuring the setbacks, it's deceiving. In other words you have the true setbacks coming back from the shoreline saying one thing but when you stand out there doing line of site you can see the proposed addition is proposed to go out, the structure, farther than the house on either side, to the east or west, and that's what this aerial photograph shows also. That's, in my interpretation, that is in direct violation of our code. Our code says it cannot project seaward of the two houses on either side, the neighboring homes on either side. MR. MCCARTHY: How is that projection, how to you measure that, Dave? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, we went out and we stood there and did line of site, looking both to the east and west. Then we also have this aerial photograph and we've drawn a line. You are welcome to come up and look at this aerial photograph. This is the footprint of your proposed addition and here we have drawn a line between the structure to the east and west. You can see the footprint exceeds out further than that line. MR. MCCARTHY: The consideration you have taken, is it only the immediate, adjacent neighbor or is it an average of the pattern of development that is existing within the neighborhood? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, we've done immediate adjacent neighbors' Board of Trustees 36 June 18, 2008 homes. We have been consistent on that, looked at the home immediately to the east and to the west. Now, there is an opportunity here, possibly, the current porch structure does not exceed that line, so if you were to limit your addition expansion to the size of what you are proposing to take down, then a deck in front of that, that's something the Board would consider. I know that's not ideal and not what you are applying for, but I'm saying it's something that is open for consideration MR. MCCARTHY: So you are, the way that you interpret and enforce the code is with an overlying single line on the front of the existing structure, the front of his deck? TRUSTEE BERGEN: The structure. MR. MCCARTHY: The structure itself. TRUSTEE KING: You may need to go to zoning on this, too. MR. MCCARTHY: We understand that, yes. Part of the information on the map that we submitted is for their benefit as well. TRUSTEE KING: I would suggest go to zoning because -- that's my suggestion. I would go to zoning first to see if you can do what you want to do here, because, I don't know. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I was going to suggest is to table this application so that the applicant has the opportunity to absorb what has been said tonight and think about other options and also take the opportunity to go to zoning also. MR. MCCARTHY: Always tricky with zoning And Trustees, it's the chicken and the egg. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree 100% MR. MCCARTHY: I would like to evaluate that, like what you said, in line with the adjacent properties and be back to you, perhaps with other submittal in the coming week. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay MR. MCCARTHY: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments? TRUSTEE KING: No, it's just a difficult choice who to go to first. But it's been my experience that if we approve something and you go to zoning and zoning says no, it's a no. they trump us. So I would rather get it straightened out there and then come to us. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I'm looking at, again, does not meet the requirements of our code. That's why I'm suggesting tabling this tonight. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think he has a good point in terms of looking at those houses to the east. MR. MCCARTHY: To the west. It's consistent with that development which was done in 1934 that map was submitted. And the adjacent property to the east was done in the early '80's and it's over two-and-a-half times the size, different setbacks, granted at that point in time. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's an interesting point. I don't think we ever considered that before. MR. MCCARTHY: How might you have interpreted it if the adjacent property was vacant. TRUSTEE GHO$10: That's a good point. Board of Trustees 37 June 18, 2008 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, so if there are no other comments I would like to make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. MCCARTHY: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Number five is still not staked. It wasn't staked when I went there. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Let me see, there is a letter in here that was received by our office on June 10. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you want to open the hearing first? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We'll open the hearing, then we'll address that. Philip Anderson on behalf of GARY GUJA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a docking facility consisting of a 4x16' ramp to a 4x58' catwalk, elevated a minimum four feet above grade of wetlands, a 3x15' ramp and a 6x20' floating dock with three secure piles plus one additional 10' round tie-off pile. Located: 372 North Drive, Mattituck. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. ANDERSON: Good evening. Philip Anderson, project manager and consultant, Southampton, New York. I recently submitted the certified receipts for the application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There is a letter here, I guess from you, that was received by our office on June 10 and I'm just going to skim quickly. As you may recall this dock application had been scheduled for the May public meeting. Neighbors had been notified however upon inspection of the site the Trustees requested the dock location be more obviously staked in the field before June 9. Enclosed are photographs -~ excuse me. In order for the application to be heard, this has also been done accordingly staked with two 1"x1" labeled and ribbon stakes. TRUSTEE KING: I didn't see them. Were there any stakes in the water at end? MR. ANDERSON: No, I have two stakes -- TRUSTEE KING: We like to see the seaward end where the float is going to be. We want to see that location staked so we can see exactly where it is. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We want to see the length going into the creek not just where it's going to be on the land. MR. ANDERSON: Also in the photographs are the stakes that were in place. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: But they are on the shore. We want to see both ends staked; on the land and water end. MR. ANDERSON: Has there been an LWRP determination. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, the LWRP is consistent. And CAC supports the application with the condition the dock extends no further seaward than neighboring docks and open grate decking is used on the catwalk. Have you considered open-grated catwalk material? MR. ANDERSON: What do they mean by open grated? Spaces between the decking? Board of Trustees 38 June 18, 2008 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's something we have been using recently, either fiberglass or plastic. MR. ANDERSON: I specified in the plan Treks decking or -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This is a brand, Thru-Flow instead of slats. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's newer than the treks. It's all plastic. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The problem is we still don't have a stake at the end. MR. ANDERSON: And you would like to see it in line with the adjacent docks? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No further out than. It can be shorter. MR. ANDERSON: Because it does line up pretty much with the dock to the north. I have to see about the dock to the south. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's why we need the stake at the farthest point. MR. ANDERSON: I'll have the surveyor go out and place the stakes. TRUSTEE KING: Are there any soundings on there also on the length of the dock? We'll need soundings also. MR. ANDERSON: Soundings are on the survey as well as on my plan. The way we have it, it's good to have unplanned view as well as the cross-section and on the survey. The float is located at a depth between two feet at Iow water and four feet. It drops off. It's on my drawings as well as the survey. TRUSTEE KING: (Perusing). Where did that float come from? There is a 6x20' float out in front of the property now. Do you know where that came from? MR. ANDERSON: It's remnants of what was out there. The only reason Mr. Guja didn't take it out is he doesn't have the manpower to move it. You can see I have my depth measurements. It's here at that point and here at this point and here at this point. And I have them here and here and also in the survey. So you can see it winds, lines up fairly much a little short of the end. I'm probably a new face to you people. I have been in the business almost 30 years but most of my work has always been on the south shore and south fork. I been here a few times before. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So that's what we would ask, that be staked, and we'll table it tonight and we'll go out and look at it in July. MR. ANDERSON: I just want to say it's nice to have that standard so that docks don't extend further than the adjacent, but that's kind of predicated on the depth along the shoreline being standard. That's not always so. So the way that I located the float, you probably know, the DEC's most recent policy is have at least two-and-a-half foot depth all the way around the float. That's how this was located and designed. Of course on the shoreline, your three foot contour let's say, who knows what it does along the shoreline. It's not just a straight line, TRUSTEE KING: Since I've been on the Board we tried to maintain the feeling of stopping one going out a little further than the other and the other guy goes a little further. MR. ANDERSON: And of course docks to the north as well as the one to the south, built ten, fifteen years ago, and even with the DEC pretty much, they put their applications in but the docks were Board of Trustees 39 June 18, 2008 pretty much allowed to be done just about however anybody wanted to do them. TRUSTEE KING: The dock to the north is fairly short. It's not long at all. They have a good size sail boat tied up there. They must be adequate water there. It's a good size sailboat. MR. ANDERSON: We are 66 feet from high water and something like 35 feet in length. I think I have several other things marked. TRUSTEE KING: We need to see it marked. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We'll need it, we'll look at it next month. MR. ANDERSON: I have several things attached to that. I don't know if you want all of that. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, you have the images. MR. ANDERSON: See all of this, these things, this dock that was there taken out. You have to take it in reference to the float. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We'll look at it next month, because we need that staked. TRUSTEE KING: Like I said, we want to see the stakes on the seaward side of the float. Two stakes. MR. ANDERSON: Two stakes. But otherwise it seems to be - TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jim, the dimensions of the piles and the fact they are eight feet on center, is that normal for that area? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, MR. ANDERSON: YES, it's standard construction. Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to table this application for July 3. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number six, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of RICHARD JOHNSON & PAMELA MAINO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x10' ramp up to a 4x18' level fixed dock section with a 3xl 0' seasonal wooden ramp onto a seasonal 5x18' floating dock secured by two 4"x4" posts. Located: 7617 Soundview Avenue, Southold. This description has changed as we have met Mr. Costello in the field and we downsized it. We do have new plans, and the new plans reflect the 3x10' ramp on to a 3x27' fixed dock with a 4x8' end section. So there will be no float at the fixed section. This is a right-of-way and the dock was moved as far over to the side as possible. Our attorney reviewed the deeds on the right-of-way and determined that the people who do have this in their deed do have the right to go down the right-of-way but it does not deter a structure to be placed there. And Johnson and Maino the property. So other people just have the right-of-way. They don't have ownership. We don't have LWRP on this. And CAC, I don't see CAC comments. Here we go. CAC supports the application with the Board of Trustees 40 June 18, 2008 condition of Thru-Flow decking is used on the fix dock and ramp and the float and dock is seasonal. This is an area that it's a great freshwater fishing area and I think the smaller the structure the better on this. And it's something that the Trustees are going to be discussing in the future, maybe making this area an area of no further structures on the lakes. For now, it's allowed. So I don't know if we can really move forward with a determination on this but we'll certainly take comment, it's a public hearing, because we don't have LWRP. With that, are there any other comments on this? MR. COSTELLO: Yes, my name is John Costello. We are the agents for the Johnson's. And as spoken by Ms. Doherty, we did reduce the width of the dock, the proposed structure, from four foot to three foot. We eliminated the floating dock at the suggestion of the Trustees and made the end a minimal 4x8 end, only that someone could congregate at the end and be able to enjoy the waterway. The entire structure has flow-thru decking. And we tried our best that me minimized the size of the posts, 4x4 posts. I don't know how else to mitigate. We made every attempt to mitigate all the concerns of the Trustees. Maybe not the LWRP director, as of yet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll make sure the LWRP receives the revised changes. That may be part of the reason he didn't get it done because he knew we were going to be revising them as he comes out in the field with us. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's long past 30 days. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But this is new. It's been changed. Significantly. So does he have to review that? I'm confused on that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No. When was it submitted for review for the LWRP? There has to be a review within 30 days on whatever is submitted. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, it's further than 30 days. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Then we can make our own determination. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. We can move forward on it then. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Even if it's a significantly different application now? MS. HULSE: Has it been revised within the 30 days? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No. MS. HULSE: Then, no. As long as it's past 30 days, it's okay. When you say it's revised, it's not within the 30 day period. In other words it's been revised and then 30 days have lapsed, or more. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, 30 days has lapsed and then it's been revised. MS. HULSE: Then I would think it needs review. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I understood. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It lapsed for the first review but now it's been changed and needs to be reviewed. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll defer to legal counsel. I thought it should be reviewed in 30 days regardless, then it's been changed since then, but it should have been reviewed within 30 days, under the original application. MS, HULSE: I would agree with that. However I think because it has been revised substantially that it would trigger a new 30-day Board of Trustees 41 June 18, 2008 period. That's my assessment. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm not arguing, I'm just pointing out I don't know if that's quite fair. If he made the changes to do the mitigation that we wanted. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree with that. Because I underetood what Lori is saying. TRUSTEE KING: I think some of the questions on this were because of the right-of-way we were not sure whether or not we could even put it in there. So it may not have been reviewed under LWRP until, you know, there was a lag there because of the questions on the rig ht-of-way. MS. HULSE: I'm not sure what the reason was for the lag. By the black letter of the law could you preceed, probably, but I don't know if it's within the spirit of the law. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll take any other comment from the audience? MR. COSTELLO: The last comment I have to make is everything was reduced in order to meet the concerns. The original drawing was significantly larger. This was a reduction to mitigate, basically, the concerns of the Trustees. Not the LWRP director or -- and if the right-of-way use has been reviewed by the attorney, that is certainly one of the things that could be, you should get and do have, I believe, but one way or the other I think if the LWRP understands that the Trustees are the ones that wanted it reduced, and we did, and we are willing to reduce it and the owner is willing to reduce it, I don't know what else. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Everything you did was upon our request to mitigate it. So -- sir? MR. MCGLINCHEY: Yes. My name is John McGlinchey, I reside across Soundview Avenue from the subject preperty. I have the right of use question in my mind is what is basically comes down to. RDE contains the following language, that we have together with the right of use, a right-of-way over on the right to use the following described parcel. Said right being in common with others and subject to reasonable rules and regulations as John Aimeor (sic) and George Jimior (sic) made from time to time imposed, which comprise certain 30-foot private roads and a private beach. The next paragraph in our deed, and I assume in other deeds, describes the preperty subject to the right-of-way over and the right to use of in identical terms as those which are contained in the applicant's deeds in Schedule A for tax lot 14 on which the applicant's residence stands. And that description of the property is of tax lot nine, which is the parcel subject to the application of this construction of various ramp and dock sections and referred to in both deeds as quote, the private beach. Simply stated, the applicants have applied for construction on preperty subject to the right-of-way over and the right of use of ourselves and others. The right-of-way is not the path. It's the entirety of that tax lot. The right to use. So it would seem to me, as a simple homeowner, I'm not an attorney, that it's not just the access to the water line that is important. It's that the Board of Trustees 42 June 18, 2008 entire structure is going to be sitting on property subject to our right to use. I appreciate the fact that the scale of the project has been reduced. I think it makes a lot of sense. It does appear, too, that at your suggestion, that this structure had been moved to the side somewhat, off of the path, which by the way has been expanded within the last two years at a minimum. I would say within the last six months, to tell you the truth. But I don't know exactly, I'm not there all the time. But moving that over does give us a little more access to water, but it doesn't address the question of putting a rather large structure on this land. If you look at those drawings, I guess, the phragmites are tight on either side, so even moving it to the side, the structure still takes up a fair amount of the available access to the water. I saw the new drawings this evening. John Costello and I chatted briefly. It's nice to deal with somebody who is willing to share information even though it's a little adversarial, I suppose. I guess what it comes down to is if the proposed ramps and docks are not clearly designated as for the use of all entitled to the right-of-way over and the right to use of the private beach, my wife and I strongly oppose construction. If, however, it is made clear that the proposed ramps and docks as modified are available for the use of all entitled to the right-of-way over and the dght to use of the private beach, we are neutral with respect to their construction and we would neither support nor oppose this application. How would you do that? Well, I suppose the application could be changed somewhat to make it clear that these structures are not intended only to the owner of the property because clearly the applicant does own, has the underlying ownership rights. It's just that lot's of people have the right to go over it. So I don't want it to go through a whole list of things that I would suggest that the application, the ways for the application to be modified to make it clear who has the right to use these things, but if that was done I would not oppose this application. And I would not support it. That's my little piece. I don't know if have you any questions for me but I don't have any for you. Except, maybe, for counsel. Have I got this straight, that they are putting it on, they are putting a rather large, what is it called, a ramp, over land, which I have the right to use as a private beach? Might it not have at least been polite for them to make some inquiry? That's other thing that bugs me about this. Because it's clear, absolutely clear, because they have the language in their deed that the property on which their house sits has the right over this private beach. That they know about this. And there was no attempt to notify us. The only notification was the little white sign that was placed there Wednesday the 10th. Most of the people around there, not most, a significant number of the people in that neighborhood, are only there weekends. Father's Day weekend in particular, many were not, and here we are with a meeting now. I mean, you know. Board of Trustees 43 June 18, 2008 MS. HULSE: Your rights obviously remain in tact. MR. MCGLINCHEY: So I could walk over that deck? MS. HULSE: That issue is not for the Trustees to consider. MR. MCGLINCHEY: Whoa. Excuse me? MS. HULSE: To use the structure, it is not before this Board. It's not an issue for this Board to consider. MR. MCGLINCHEY: Can I interrupt for a moment. Because this board just addressed legal counsel's opinion that they had the right to put a structure there, so I think -- MS. HULSE: The Trustees have a right to approve the structure there MR. MCGLINCHEY: No, you are misunderstanding my point, I believe. Somebody reading something before, or a statement early on, Trustee Doherty, I believe, said that counsel had addressed the fact they had the right to put a structure there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have a right to approve a structure. MR. MCGLINCHEY: You have the right to approve or they have a right to build? You said they have the right to build. MS. HULSE: As they have ownership interest in this, they have a right to apply and the Trustees are within their right to approve that if they so desire. Your deeds don't preclude the Trustees from issuing a permit for that structure. My point is to address your question of who has the right to use that structure is not before this Board to consider. MR. MCGLINCHEY: Could the Board approve the construction of a fence around that structure? MS. HULSE: I'm just going to address what is before the Board at this time, sir. And I appreciate the fact it's an important issue for you. I'm just making a point as the attorney for the Board that it's not for them to consider. They have an application here that they can approve, legally approve, if they so choose. MR. MCGLINCHEY: Any structure? MS. HULSE: The structure that is, the application that is on the agenda this evening. MR. MCGLINCHEY: Thank you, for the clarification. Okay, i'm good, thank you, very much. I appreciate your time. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments? MR. D'AUGUSTA: Yes. My name is Vincent D' Augusta. I, like John, have deeded rights to the beach and private road. I have been going down there for a number of years. At one time I even had the road bulldozed. It got to be a regular hang out for kids to be done there, so we left it alone. Now when I to go down there, I have hay bales and plants going across my access to get to the beach. What was once a dirt path is now pine chips or chips. And it's getting wider. In fact I was amazed when I got on the Internet, after seeing those on Monday, that the same piece of property and the same dock we are talking about is on the market for sale. With a proposed dock. And in addition to the house. Obviously the person is putting in for the construction of the dock is not going to be living there. If he sells the house, someone else buys the house, same as John, are we going to have access to the right-of-way? Is anybody going to acknowledge it? As it is Board of Trustees 44 June 18, 2008 right now, the road itself has been blocked off, We've been deprived. In order to get to the private road, I have to traverse his lot. MS. HULSE: Their deed gives you the right to access, but that issue is not before the Board. You have to understand. And we understand, I understand, what your points are. But that issue is not before this Board to decide. Their only question, they are not talking about your right to access the right-of-way which, clearly to me, is in your deed. Their issue is whether the structure is permittable MR. D'AUGUSTA: Can I get a copy of the opinion from Southold Town court? Can I get a copy of your decision? MS. HULSE: It was an opinion I gave to them verbally, sir. MR. D'AUGUSTA: If I want to pursue this further, what action would I have to take? MS. HULSE: I would suggest hiring counsel. I'm only speaking as a representative of the Trustees. MR. D'AUGUSTA: I'm only considering in the future, if I pass the house on to my children will they have the rights, will it be maintained in the deed? As it is right now -- MS. HULSE: If your deed is before you then it's pretty clear in your deed. MR. D'AUGUSTA: I have a deed, ma'am, that goes back to cutting ice in Gray Pond in order to walk across somebody's property. The right to do that. And cut firewood. MS. HULSE: I just want you to understand what the Trustees can address and can't address. MR. D'AUGUSTA: You understand our point of view. That's basically what I'm here for. Thank you for your time. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments? (No response.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: I wish this was simple. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Then it wouldn't be so much fun. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm stating that I'm not comfortable without getting an LWRP review. MS. HULSE: Just to clarify the LWRP issue. In Section D, it says the coordinator shall require the applicant to submit all completed applications. What I glean from that is that it needs to be complete. So it's to include what you are actually considering. Could you work within that phraseology to say, okay, 30 days have past? I'm sure you can. It certainly seems to be to me intended to trigger review if it's been substantially altered. MR. MCGLINCHEY: Could you give me the letters and what they stand for? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: LWRP. Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. MR. MCGLINCHEY: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion to take the advice of counsel and table this application in order to get the LWRP review on the revised application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. Board of Trustees 45 June 18, 2008 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. COSTELLO: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Number seven, RO Barrett on behalf of SHUI CHING CHEN requests a Wetland Permit to construct an addition to the existing dwelling, abandon existing well and cesspool, install a new septic system and reise grade level to elevations 9.4' and 10.2' when excavation spoil and top soil is replaced after installation, and connect to public water service. Located: 7433 Soundview Avenue, Southold. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. BARRATT: Good evening. For the record, my name is Robert Barrett. As you mentioned, I'm here representing the Chen family. And I'm ready to answer any questions you might have. One thing, before we carry on, if I might, I have two guests with me this evening, Frank Palillo and Dianne Palillo, and they are very interested in this plot because there is quite a good chance that they will become the ownere of this plot of land and this house shortly, and will be the ones actually implementing the very small imprevement we are looking for. TRUSTEE KING: I take it they are prospective buyers of the property? That's my understanding? MR. BARRATT: Yes, sir. I have been instructed to say that the contract has been signed, but of course there are stipulations and the deliberations of this Board are one of them. TRUSTEE KING: Okay, we went out and looked at it. CAC did not make an inspection so there is no recommendation made. So they have no recommendation to make. MR. BARRA'I-r: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: I take it any of the filling is going to be done on the landward side of the house, correct? MR. BARRATT: Most definitely, sir. TRUSTEE KING: Nothing on the water side? MR. BARRATT: No. TRUSTEE KING: We have a letter in here in support of this from one of the neighbors. 7617 Soundview Avenue. They are in full support of the wetland application. I can't read the writing. Looks like M-A-E-N-O. MR. BARRATT: Yes, Maeno wrote you a letter and it's being reported that Helen Belano (sic) also wrote a letter. It's only my word but I have had expressions of positive interest from Mr. Falk, who actually lives next door. TRUSTEE KING: There is another letter in the file here from Helen Belano in favor of this. So there are two letters in the file in support of this. I don't think the Board had a problem with anything but I remember, I was on the Board, we did have a problem with that dock. MR. BARRATT: Yes, Sir TRUSTEE KING: I think, I don't have the old file with me tonight. I would like to review that. Board of Trustees 46 June 18, 2008 MR. BARRATT: You are referring to Trustee permit 5216. That was a permit that was issued to Richard Sansevere (sic), about a decade ago, and he actually sold the property on. I think the permit might have still been -- TRUSTEE KING: I don't think the dock conforms to what was supposedly permitted. MR. BARRATT: That's correct. TRUSTEE KING: So we want to, I think now is the time to get that corrected and bring that dock into compliance with what it is supposed to be. I haven't got the old file to look at, but I'm getting older but I still remember things. I can't remember what I did yesterday but I remember ten years ago. MR. BARRATT: I must be in the same situation. I do have that with me if you want to see it. TRUSTEE KING: If you have it handy, sure. MR. BARRATT: Yes, sir TRUSTEE KING: It was found inconsistent with LVVRP. That's because it's less than 100 feet away from the water. It's an automatic inconsistency. MR. BARRATT: The whole lot is within 100 feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Scott also mentioned that it's -- TRUSTEE KING: The proposed addition constitutes more than 25% of the original structure and it's not reviewable. It's a minor exempt. That's more coastal erosion language than wetland code, right? Because there is no mention in the wetland code. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Does he say -- 275-3. TRUSTEE KING: That's the setback. There is nothing in the code on percentage of structures TRUSTEE KING: That's in coastal erosion. 268. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's LWRP. Right. 268-B. LWRP. But when I talked to him I thought the 25% was referring to the building department. TRUSTEE KING: That's LWRP, I guess. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think it refers to building department also. MR. BARRATT: Can I help you on that point? TRUSTEE KING: You can try. MR. BARRATT: The addition we are looking for is 330 square feet on a 2,200 square foot home. TRUSTEE KING: It's just an extension of a dormer, right? MR. BARRATT: I have a photograph -- not a photograph. I have a colored -- TRUSTEE KING: 2,200 square feet plus the garage. 3,300 square feet with the addition, TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Should we get Lori, just to clarify it. MR. BARRATT: May I approach? TRUSTEE KING: Sure. What they want to do is extend the dormer on the upper floor. And this is approximately 300. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are wondering if the coastal erosion code is saying this. Is that a Building Department? TRUSTEE KING: He's indicating it has nothing to do with this here. Board of Trustees 47 June 18, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's 268 MS. HULSE: That's LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: So they defined less than 25%. It says pursuant to. MR. BARRATT: We are not changing the footprint at all. MS. HULSE: I understand that. I'm just curious. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are just trying to clarify. TRUSTEE KING: Looking into the language, why it's inconsistent. It's automatically inconsistent because it's within 100 feet. That's a given. There is another section here that says if it constitutes more than 25% construction. MS. HULSE: I'm going to assume he confused it with coastal erosion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That clarifies that. MR. BARRA'D': I'll withdraw that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That clarifies that it's inconsistent because of the 100 feet. TRUSTEE KING: I believe so. That's my feeling. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have any drywells indicated on the plan? TRUSTEE KING: Drywells for roof runoff. MR. BARRAq-I': No. In the LWRP answers I did say that we would be willing to include drywells on the corners, as we have done in other developments. TRUSTEE KING: You'll have to. When you do these modifications, you have to meet the new drainage code now. It's not just us, it's the Building Department will require this also. But we always ask for the drywells to be shown. MR. BARRATT: I'm very familiar with it. I have been observing it for quite some time as it's developed, and I advised the clients and they have no problem. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll need to see them on the plans. MR. BARRATT: I could add them to the plan and get you a copy. TRUSTEE KING: On the septic system is this closest one, is that an expansion pool? MR. BARRATT: Can I approach? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. BARRATT: If it's cross hatched. TRUSTEE KING: That's the expansion. MR. BARI*ATT: Yes. I arranged it so that the expansion pool is -- TRUSTEE KING: It's 95 feet. This is 95 for the expansion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In the field we saw that we like to have it further out but we saw there is really no room to move it further back. We are just trying to think if there is any way to rearrange it so it could be moved further back. Because we know you have water, county water in there now. So you don't have to worry about the well. MR. BARRA-FI': We could switch these two, so that one is back here. But you know there is only a very limited amount of space and we are trying to do things to not disturb the local environment. TRUSTEE KING: Not much room to move here. I think I would rather see this moved in place of this expansion pool with these two in line with each other. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is the leaching pool Board of Trustees 48 June 18, 2008 TRUSTEE KING: These are active pools. These are the expansions. This would be a better plan. MR. BARRATT: There is three expansions. This one, this one and this one. TRUSTEE KING: This would be a better plan if you switched this up to here. Then you have two expansion pools that are closest. We just can't get them any further but at least that gets the active ones the furthest away. MR. BARRA'I-I': That's almost 100 hundred feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So far we need drywells, leaders, gutters. MR. BARRATT: I can get you drawings in 24 hours. TRUSTEE KING: Actually that puts the active pools over 100 feet. This is just on the edge. This one gets put up there, that's out of it. It's just the two expansion pools. I don't think we can do any more than that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's good. MR. BARRA'VI': Very good. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? (No response.) Being none, I11 make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the changes we just discussed. One expansion pool will be moved, one active pool will be moved landward further and the expansion pool will be put in its place. There's to be drywells and gutters to take care of roof runoff. One of my concerns is the dock. The dock does not conform; I don't believe it conforms on the permit that was issued about ten years ago. TRUSTEE KING: $o, I think, if I remember right, it's supposed to be a lot narrower, downsized. The previous owner just built what he wanted to build and we went around and around. In the meantime the property had been sold and it was never corrected. MR. BARRATT: They just didn't have the means to go ahead. TRUSTEE KING: That's an issue. MR. BARRA'I-r: We worked together in the workshop on docks and at last month's meeting and again at this meeting, the idea of using fiberglass mesh or grating has come up and one thought going through my mind, I'm just strictly an engineer, I'm not an environmentalist, but I do remember the people from NOAH saying that hydroblasting the piles out of the ground perhaps did more harm than good, and how would the Trustees feel about leaving the front of the dock as it was and having the good part of the horizontal access surface converted to say fiberglass mesh? TRUSTEE KING: We could consider it. We could consider it. MR. BARRATT: Okay, good. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You would have to apply for an amendment and transfer of that permit. That would have to be done as a separate action. And you also have to apply for a transfer to the new Board of Trustees 49 June 18, 2008 owners at that time. MR. BARRATT: Yes, ma'am. TRUSTEE KING: The only other thing we like to see is a ten-foot non-turf buffer along the bulkhead. MR. BARRATT: The buffer right now is ten feet. The way the DEC wrote up their permit, they said at least during construction we had to maintain a 20-foot buffer with of course the standard hay bale line. TRUSTEE KING: All right, I didn't think too much about a hay bale line because there really is no excavation near the water. This is a DEC requirement, hay bale line in place? MR. BARRATT: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: We'll put that on the permit also. MR. BARRATT: It was not a standard requirement. It was a special condition, so I have to adhere to it. TRUSTEE KING: I see that. All right. I see that now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just to clarify, ail the fill will all be landward of the house for the septic. Nothing seaward. MR. BARRATT: The other thing they asked for, which might be interesting, if you missed it, is because the lot is only about 100 feet deep our construction equipment during the construction period, which is a relatively short period, will have to be parked on the lot within 100 feet and they give us a solution though that problem. They say as long as we lay tarps to pick up any oil or anything that might be dripping, they are perfectly happy to do that rather than us going through the horrendous cost of taking the equipment offsite to some distant, which would be just awful. Of course we'll adhere to that, too. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) I'll make a motion to approve the application with the changes to the septic system we discussed, drywells for the roof runoff and a ten-foot non-turf buffer along the bulkhead. And we'll do something with the dock to make it conform to the permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you want to add that -- do you want to add a condition that all other permits be transferred? TRUSTEE KING: You need to transfer the permits. And at that time we can address the dock situation. MR. BARRA'I-I': Understood. TRUSTEE KING: All right. And the inconsistency was because ofthe 100-foot setback. I think we brought it into consistency by having the drywells for the roof runoff, we have a non-turf buffer, the cesspools were moved as far landward as we can get them. There is an expansion pool within our jurisdiction, but the others are outside. And there is a row of hay bales during construction. So I think, I would recommend the Board finds this consistent with LWRP. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. Board of Trustees 50 June 18, 2008 (ALL AYES.) MR. PALILLO: Sorry, I apologize. If it's not too late to speak, my name is Frank Palillo. My concern is that I don't think we have actually addressed the dock problem. I think we just put it off. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's under a separate application and separate permit so what we said in this approval is that you are to come and transfer that dock application. You have to apply for a transfer as a separate issue and at that time we'll address it. MR. PALILLO: My problem with that though is that the transfer will come at the time I'm ready to close on this piece of property. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can't transfer until you own it. MR. PALILLO: Right. But I can't have a decision from this Board that is subject to the conditions pertaining to my contract. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You have a current permit for a dock. There is a current permit for a dock. What is out there is not in concurrence with that permit. So what we are saying is that permit has to be, you have to come into conformity with that permit. So regardless of who owns it, has it to do that. MR. PALILLO: We gave you the alternative of hopefully putting in the boards that you would discuss it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we'll have to address that separately when it comes to that permit. MR. PALILLO: How could I get it to that point before I'm to the point of transfer, or I can't purchase it. MS. HULSE: Why not? MR. PALILLO: Because the condition of this contract is all the permits are approved. TRUSTEE KING: You have an approved permit. But the dock does not meet the standards of that permit. MR. PALILLO: Unless I misunderstand -- MS. HULSE: You have a permit. You have a valid permit. What you have out there doesn't conform with the terms of the permit. So at some point in time, presumably when you request a transfer, you should request an amendment to that permit or bring the dock into conformance. It's not going to stop you from closing. MR. PALILLO: tt is going to stop me from closing. Because this permit is conditioned upon the dock permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You have the dock permit, though. MR. PALILLO: But it's not correct. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You have a valid permit. If your contract says you have to have a valid permit for what is there, you have that. You have the valid permit. The dock is not constructed to that permit, though. So you have a valid permit. TRUSTEE KING: We see this a lot in the older, let's say somebody has a permit for a 10x20 dock. They sell the property. The new owner transfers that permit to us. We go and look at it and it's 10x50. So now they have to amend it to try to get what is there or maybe downsize it a little bit. MR. PALILLO: I thank you for your patience, because I'm still not getting it. I apologize. One more time. My contract of sale is conditioned upon approval of this permit. You approved it tonight Board of Trustees 51 June 18, 2008 but you have indicated that when I apply for a transfer, which I'm going to do, from the Chen's, then we'll visit the dock issue again. TRUSTEE KING: It only concerns the dock and nothing else. MR. PALILLO: I may still have the same problem. I may wind up closing on the home and purchasing it and have the Board tell me reduce the size of the dock now. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. PALILLO: That's what I'm trying to avoid. TRUSTEE KING: You can't avoid that. Unless the present owner brings that dock into compliance with a permit. MR. PALILLO: Is it not true the present owner can also file an application to do the alternative docking? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's something for you to work out in your contract. It's not before this Board tonight and we can't address it tonight. MR. BARRATT: I think, from my point much view, the good thing is you are sort of saying in non-legal language that you are willing to honor the previous permit that was issued. TRUSTEE KING: They have a valid permit, yes. MR. BARRATT: I was not quite sure because this expires in two years, you know. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There is a dock there. They have a valid permit for a dock. But not the dock that is currently there. And that's something he has to work out. MR. PALILLO: Thank you, for your patience. MR. BARRATT: Thank you, everybody. TRUSTEE KING: I believe the first owner that we had the problems with, I believe he was issued a violation for that dock that he build and nothing was ever done. It was a violation issued on that. I remember. Lauren just reminded me. MR. BARRATT: And he sold it on to an innocent buyer. TRUSTEE KING: He looks worried. It's not a huge problem. MR. PALILLO: If it results in me having to reduce the size of the dock, it's a huge problem for me. Thank you, though. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number eight, B. Laing Associates on behalf of GEORGE BALDWIN requests a Wetland Permit to install eight feet of bulkhead on each landward end of the existing bulkhead above AMHW. Placement of 24 linear feet of gabion baskets landward of AMHW to provide shoreline stabilization. Located: 1045 Island View Lane, Greenport. The Board went out to take a look at this last week, We were all there. The LWRP find this to be inconsistent because the proposed action is not in compliance with 275-11 and it is therefore inconsistent concerning construction and operation standards. The LWRP report recommends use of vegetative non-structural measures to manage erosion such as a bio-log design requiring a non-turf buffer landward of the existing bulkhead. Let's see, basically, that's it. CAC resolved to support the wetland application with no other suggestions. Board of Trustees 52 June 18, 2008 The Board, when we were out in the field, suggested at the time that as part of this application we allow, put in this application the phragmites can be cut and maintained and that we add a ten-foot non-turf buffer along the whole way. Is there anybody here who would like to address this application? MR. BONTJE: Yes. My name is Mike Bontje from B. Laing Associates and I'm here to represent the Baldwin's. With regard to the vegetative methodology versus the gabion, we deliberately stayed away from that in this particular case because this area is used by the homeowner for a lot of small craft to go in and out of the water. Obviously it's been vegetated for decades and has not succeeded in arresting the erosion. That was the idea of notching the gabion and coming across with a three foot basket, then one-and-a-half and coming back up to a three footer and putting some wooden decking across there to allow small boats to come in and out without causing further erosion. With regard to the ten-foot non-turf before for the entire length, that would include the existing bulkhead, so the wooden bulkhead as well as the proposed gabion? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. BONTJE: Also, the non-turf buffer, what would you require in terms of vegetation in that area? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Anything that is native and non-invasive. TRUSTEE KING: If you left sand or gravel, or vegetation MR, BONTJE: Native vegetation. Okay that's the extent of my thoughts for the moment. If you have any further questions of me. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Questions or concerns from the Board? (No response.) I don't think the Board had any objections. As a matter of fact we thought it was a good idea to help reduce the erosion down there. I don't know how to address the LWRP inconsistency. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Putting the buffer there mitigates it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Why was it inconsistent? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It was suggested we use vegetative non-structural measures such as bio-logs. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Didn't the applicant say it was vegetated for years but it was not working. So that attempt has already been tried, it sounds like. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion we approve the application of George Baldwin as stated here, knowing that the vegetative measures to correct the erosion problems there have been tried and not worked, and we find with the addition of a ten-foot non-turf buffer along the bulkhead and the gabion baskets as described mitigates the issues with LWRP and brings it into consistency. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. Board of Trustees 53 June 18, 2008 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MS. MOORE: Thank you, for your time. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number nine. En-Consultants on behalf of DANIEL N. KOHN LIVING TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to construct 164 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of (and 12" higher than) existing timber bulkhead (including 31' of bulkhead/retaining walls forming step-down platform and stairs to be replaced inplace and 12" higher); construct 47 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead on landward side of existing timber bulkhead to be removed; construct 16' westerly return; remove and replace existing steps, decking and walkways adjacent to bulkhead (inplace, except 6x55' section of easterly walkway to be reoriented to align with easterly property line); backfill area landward of new bulkheading (including 7'x14'x15" concrete step-down to be eliminated) with approximately 20 cubic yards of clean sand fill to be trucked in from an upland source; and raise existing shed (inplace) approximately 27" onto newly established grade. Located: 500 Little Peconic Bay Road, Cutchogue. This is an application that we had reviewed, we began to review last month. Just to go over a couple of housekeeping issues, it was determined to be consistent under the LWRP. It was reviewed by the CAC and they resolved to support the application with the condition of the presence of a non-turf buffer is maintained. We had, last month, reviewed this and we came to a point where there was a question as to the ownership on the eastern side of the property. Counsel had requested that the neighbor, the Cavanaugh's, submit some documentation because they challenged the survey that had been submitted with the application of the Kohn's. And the Cavanaugh's had submitted a recorded deed from 1997, which contains a 1997 survey, and this survey conflicts with the survey that the Kohn's had submitted with this project and the Kohn survey was January 22, 2007. So what we have is a situation here where we just found out, because this was just submitted on the 16th of June, that there is a question and a conflict between the two adjoining property owners as to the property line. What is interesting to me is I look at this survey submitted with the application and the property line in question shows that the corner of the bulkhead appears to extend over to the east of the property line, and I look at the survey that has been submitted by the Cavanaugh's and it's just the opposite. It appears the bulkhead is to the west of the property line. But because we have two conflicting surveys here and we just received this, I'm not sure that we can do anything but table this and give the Kohn's, the applicant here, the opportunity to review this deed that has been submitted. But I'm welcome to take comments. MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, En-Consultants, on behalf of the applicant. Just one thing, Dave, I want to clarify for the Board of Trustees 54 June 18, 2008 record. I think it's a little, well, to me there is no conflict between the two surveys. What is different about the Nathan, Taft, Corwin map that we submitted is simply that it does reflect the Cavanaugh and Frank upland piece adjacent to the applicant's. It does not reflect what Cavanaugh and Frank have claimed as their underwater piece. And I just want to state for the record, the only reason for that - TRUSTEE KING: Correct MR. HERMAN: (continuing.) Is because the standard surveying practice is to pull the Suffolk County tax map. They identify all the adjacent parcels, then they pull all the deeds for that pamel. Again, what I tried to convey last time, I have no opinion as to whether the Cavanaugh and Frank own that piece. I just wanted it to be clear the reason it's not shown on the applicant's survey is because it is not on the Suffolk County tax map. So in order to determine whether in fact it is a legally and privately owned underwater piece as opposed to you owning it as part of the public is for you to decide and for counsel to decide. What does show, now I think where the conflict comes in, is to the extent that our current survey does show the location of the bulkhead, the corner - I'll make sure I get the direction correct - the southwesterly corner occurring 1.2 feet to the east of the property line. TRUSTEE KING: Southwest or southeast? MR. HERMAN: Southeast corner. Sorry. So if in fact the Trustees were to determine, in effect they would agree with the neighbor's claim, then that very, very small wedge would in fact be not on your land where you could issue a permit without consent but on Cavanaugh and Frank's land where past practice of the Board would require their written consent, which we are inferring is not forthcoming. Am I doing okay so far? TRUSTEE BERGEN: So far. MR. HERMAN: So the question then for the Board is really twofold. Let's assume for the second that the Board is convinced that Cavanaugh and Frank own this underwater piece. You basically have two options as I see it. You can either recognize the fact that this piece, that this has existed like this for three or four decades, or whatever it is, long prior to their ownership, and has never before been contested. You've permitted its repair before and can you, not withstanding that claim, permit us to simply do the same thing. If you decide you are not comfortable with that then I think you have no choice but to request we get their written consent for the plan as currently proposed. So I would ask what the Board would like to do with that, just postponing our own, reserving our right for the moment to review the deed that has been submitted. I guess what I have to ask, is what is the Board's pleasure. If Mr. Kohn says, okay, they own it, what is the Board inclined to do, grant us the permit anyway or request that we seek their permission? MS. HULSE: You would have to seek their permission. MR. HERMAN: Okay, then I'll come to the second scenario. As the Board of Trustees 55 June 18, 2008 Board knows, Jim, especially, in prior cases sometimes where is there significant marsh, for example, adjacent to a return like this, where there is not here, but if there were, for example, the DEC and sometimes this Board is now requiring that the new bulkhead be constructed landward of the existing bulkhead. So my question to the Board is can we simply get rid of this issue all together by proposing rather than replacing 119 feet, replacing only 117 feet to the point and then constructing the new return on the landward side of the existing so that we don't even broach this conflict. TRUSTEE KING: That makes too much sense. MR. HERMAN: Then the Board is grenting permission for Mr. Kohn to do everything within his own property and the other issue will sit where it sits. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are reading our minds up here because when you were done that was the suggestion that Peggy had just leaned over and said to me and I already thought of, if you were just willing to move it, reduce it so that it's within. MR. HERMAN: I'm not even saying to remove it. We're not touching it. Just build a new return almost in effect as a landward resheath except we'll have to have this very carefully plotted out. For the record, this all to me seems absurd. This condition has existed for 40 years. So, again, I'm not sure at the end of the day what is to be gained by forcing us to go through all this. But it is what it is. So my question is as long as we are proposing to construct that new section of bulkhead entirely within the property line as designated on our survey, and that can be staked in the field, it can be checked by the neighbors, it can be checked by the Board, but at least that way what we are doing is we are not even speaking to that issue. We'll do nothing with it and -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree. And I don't have a problem with that. What it means is reducing the scope of the project. MR. HERMAN: Right. I would have to give you revised plans that would show a slightly different blend and then having it return on the landward side, which would be completely within Mr. Kohn's rights. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Yes, sir? MR. CAVANAUGH: My name is Tom Cavanaugh. For the last ten years owned the property immediately adjacent and to the east for which a wetlands permit is being requested. I issued a letter, I guess on 5/19 and raised some concerns. I would like those concerns reviewed on a line item by line item basis to determine what action the Trustees will be taking. But before I do that, according to Chapter 275 of the wetlands and shoreline code this application consists of three parts. It consists of a bulkhead, walkway and sheds. All of these are indicated as structures under the wetland and shoreline code and two of those items, walkways and sheds, are preexisting non-permitted non-conforming structures. The only right to rebuild as is, is for the bulkhead as indicated in Chapter 275. The existing walkways and the shed are items that need full Trustee review. Except for structures used Board of Trustees 56 June 18, 2008 for pre-existing and non-permitted and nonconforming structures cannot be replaced inkind without full review and approval by the Trustees. So I would like to look very carefully not only at the bulkhead, which can be replaced inkind, and the definition in Chapter 275 means inplace without modifications. This is not being replaced inkind and inplace. It is being raised 12 inches so it doesn't fall under the category of an inkind inplace replacement. And maybe by that definition it should receive a full administrative review. I indicated very clearly that I think the existing bulkhead exceeds my neighbor's riparian rights according to the state coastal management by being built on land that is presently not under the ownership of my neighbor. I also, as requested, submitted a certified deed by the town indicating my ownership of the land underwater, for which part of that bulkhead is currently located. And I would like to review the point indicated in my letter of 5/19 and understand that if this application will be approved exactly what is the Trustees course of action under each of the points I enumerated. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Was this not gone over in the last hearing? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't think we need to go through all that on the record. I think we've already done that. We had the opening of the hearing last month. MR. CAVANAUGH: I don't think we fully came to a conclusion because there were options put out there and they were not defined. I'll be very specific. MS. HULSE: Can I just ask for a clarification on something you just mentioned. Were you consenting to a bulkhead inkind/inplace? Did you just say that? MR. CAVANAUGH: No, I did not say that. What I said -- MS. HULSE: I though I heard that. I'm sorry. MR. CAVANAUGH: What I said, under Chapter 275 the only thing the Trustees can approve is a bulkhead inplace and inkind. MS. HULSE: But you were consenting to that. MR. CAVANAUGH: I was not. TRUSTEE KING: That's not necessarily true. We've approved bulkheads that have been, if it's physically impossible to put them in place, we've allowed them --. MR. CAVANAUGH: If it's located seaward, but not a change in elevation. Not according to your current wetland standards. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I believe in the wetland standards it also says up to the discretion of the Board. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And we have allowed changes in elevation on bulkheads. MR. CAVANAUGH: I understand there is precedent. MS. HULSE: I think it's moot because obviously there is an ownership question. I thought there was a comment made toward that, so. MR. CAVANAUGH: In your comments on the review the proposal, the Board of Trustees 57 June 18, 2008 proposed action has not been reviewed pursuant to section 268.3 and is not inkind replacement but is up to 12 inches higher than the existing bulkhead with a new 16' vinyl return. So even in your review you are acknowledging it's not inplace/inkind. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The LWRP found this consistent. MS. HULSE: It was reviewed under Chapter 268 and it was found to be consistent, Mr. Cavanaugh. MR. CAVANAUGH: That's not the documentation in the file. I'm quoting from the file. The proposed action has been reviewed pursuant to 268.3 and is not inkind replacement but is up to 12 inches higher than existing bulkhead with a new 16-foot vinyl return. That's in the file and in the review. It's not my statement. And the file is public record. MS. HULSE: Okay, I'm just commenting that I thought the review for LWRP is determined consistent. It was found to be consistent. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have here, May 7, 2008, review of the LWRP performed by Scott Hilary, and it says proposed action is consistent with LWRP standards and is therefore consistent with the LWRP. So that's what we have right here in the file. MR. CAVANAUGH: Okay. I'll Xerox the part of the file and send it to your attention where it conflicts with that statement. MS. HULSE: Would you like to see it? You could take a look at it. MR. CAVANAUGH: Yes, I would. MR. HERMAN: Can I interject. I think when we filed the application there was a question whether it was exempt. So I think the clarification that it's not inkind inplace and, again, just the fact it's vinyl rather than timber makes it not inkind/inplace. There is almost nothing this Board sees anymore that is inkind/inplace because anything inkind would no longer be consistent with the code. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. MR. HERMAN: So Scott probably notes that and then makes a consistency determination, which in this is consistent. So let's move on. MR. CAVANAUGH: The preference would be we read the code instead of making up interpretations that are not in the code. Only inplace replacement of existing functional bulkheads as defined is section 275.2 is permitted. Inkind replacement relates to position and dimensions and does not necessarily require or allow use of the same material. So the question of vinyl is covered under that section of Chapter 275. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, if you would like to see this document that I have here in front me, you are welcome to. MR. CAVANAUGH: I would. MR. HERMAN: And for the second time, we didn't apply for inkind/inplace replacement. We are just wasting time. It's an inplace replacement which has been determined consistent with LWRP. MR. CAVANAUGH: It's not inplace. It's 12-inches higher. Let's talk about semantics here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you want to look at that and give it back to me, then step back to the microphone, please. Board of Trustees 58 June 18, 2008 MR. CAVANAUGH: (Perusing.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Was that it, sir?. MR. CAVANAUGH: No, it's not. The application verbiage refers to inplace. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree that we want to move this along, so please finish up your comments. MR. CAVANAUGH: Okay. The existing shed requested to be maintained is less than six feet from the water. I consider it to be an eyesore and I consider it does not correspond to the LWRP. I think it violates policy number three, enhance visual quality and protect scenic resoumes. I request it be removed as a use that is not water related. And if it could definitely be raised 27 inches, it could easily be moved to a point where it's not six feet away from the water's edge. In regard to a walkway that is scheduled to be re-oriented to be on the property line, I have objections in terms of maintaining the property if the walkway is re-oriented. The application calls for hay bales to be put in place, which is inconsistent and not feasible from a construction standpoint if that walkway is located to the property line. There was conversations about maintaining the existing location of that walkway but again nothing definitive was established as to whether that was going to be a decision of the Trustees or not. So I have three concerns. i have a concern about parts of the piles and bulkhead being on land that I cleady own under title. I have a concern about perpetuating what would be a non-conforming condition of the shed and making the condition worse by raising it 27 inches and; I have a concern about another nonconforming structure which is a walkway to-orientating that walkway to the property line, which would cause me an inconvenience and I don't find acceptable. So when you do make a ruling and you do proceed, I would like to know how specifically those issues are going to be addressed and how that language will be put in the permit application to safeguard my personal rights in regard to my property rights. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. is there anybody else who would like to comment on this application? MR. HERMAN: Again, Rob Herman, just to respond to the comments, briefly. We did discuss at the last hearing that based on Mr. Cavanaugh's concern about the walkway being moved closer to his property line that we would modify the plans to simply replace the walkway in place, where it is. Just for the record, the shed is not six feet from the bulkhead. The width of the step down platform is six feet. That may be what Mr. Cavanaugh is looking at. The pre-existing shed, legally preexisting shed, is 12 feet from the bulkhead and will remain in that same location. We have now also offered to eliminate from the proposed work or from the application, I should say, any proposed work that would be over the land that Mr. Cavanaugh has submitted a deed showing Board of Trustees 59 June 18, 2008 ownership for. And again, the application, I think there is some confusion. The Trustees are not limited to approve things that are inkind and inplace. It has to be inkind/inplace in order to be exempt from Chapter 268 review. This was not except from Chapter 268 review. It was reviewed and it was found consistent. Trustee Bergen has the document in his hands. As far as this being different than being exactly inkind because it's being elevated, et cetera, so too is Mr. Cavanaugh's application that was approved by this Board to raise the elevation of his bulkhead, not exactly inkind/inplace for that reason. So, again, we have not proposed inkind/inplace for that reason. So again, we have not proposed inkind/inplace, just inplace, raising, et cetera, the rest of the details. All the other comments we discussed last month, we are on the record for our response, so I won't respond any further. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Anybody else from the audience have any comments on this application? (No response.) Well, last month at the hearing we covered many of the issues that have already been brought up tonight. We have done a full review of this application and the only part of this application that is left right now outstanding is, in my mind to be determined, is the length of this bulkhead. It was originally proposed as 164 and what now have to determine is how farwe reduce that to be sure that it's not extending over on to what Mr. Cavanaugh states is his property MR. HERMAN: Well, the significant component to that footage is the 119 feet that is shown across the front. If you'll notice on the survey it shows from monument to monument is 117 and I think point 32.3. So we would reduce plus or minus '119 feet to plus or minus 117 feet, just to make sure we are within the property line, and then would extend the return landward at that point and just an estimation following the property line, probably about a 15-foot return inside the property line. We show it as 14 now. That length will probably stay the same. So it would probably be an overall reduction of two feet in order to stay off of the land that is in question. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So the return then is -- MR. HERMAN: Would be constructed on the landward side of the property line. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Plus or minus 14 feet. MR. HERMAN: Correct. And the front would be plus or minus 117. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. MR. HERMAN: And we had also talked about expanding the buffer on the west side to match up with the new return that is proposed over there on that arc, which we indicated last month that Mr. Kohn had no problem with. TRUSTEE BERGEN: To go over a couple of notes from last month, any pipes coming out from the bulkhead, I believe there was a pipe there, to be eliminated. Continue the buffer as you just referred to. The use of non-treated material for the deck. The spacing of approximately 3/8ths of an inch spacing on that deck. We were going to add the flag pole in to the permit because the flag pole Board of Trustees 60 June 18, 2008 was not on the description. And then if you decide to eliminate the flag pole, you can do that, but at least it's there in the permit. I believe that covered it. Am them any other comments from the Board? (No response.) Then what I would like to do is make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I would like to do is make a motion to approve this application, number nine, Eh-Consultants on behalf of Daniel Kohn Living Trust as described with one change, that the 119 foot length of bulkhead on the seaward side of the property will be reduced to 117 foot plus or minus, which will bring it inside the property line as per both surveys. TRUSTEE KING: The walkway will suffice? TRUSTEE BERGEN: The walkway to be replaced where its currant location is inplace. Any drainage pipes to be eliminated; the continuation of the buffer along the return that's on the western side of the pre perry; the use of non-receipted material on the decking; the spacing to be 3/4ths of an inch and include the flag pole in on this description. And I believe that's it. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. HERMAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number ten, En-Consultants on behalf of STRONG'S MARINE, INC., requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 344 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of existing timber bulkhead; remove 4' and 31' northerly sections of existing timber bulkhead and construct 30' of new vinyl bulkhead landward thereof (excavate approximately 20 cubic yards of material from between old and new walls to a depth of-2'ALW); maintenance dredge (to a maximum depth of-5' ALW) approximately 390 cubic yards of spoil from area up to 20' off bulkhead; reuse approximately 75 cubic yards excavated/spoil material as backfill and truck remaining 335 cubic yards of material offsite to an approved upland source; reconstruct platforms and ramps attached to bulkhead; and replace/upgrade existing fuel tank and pumps with 6k gasoline tank and 2.5k diesel tank. Located: 2402 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. Is there anyone hem who would like to speak for this application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, En-Consultants, on behalf of Strong's Marine. Jeff Strong is also hem and so is Ryan Strong. It should be pretty straight forward application. This is in effect a continuation of bulkhead replacement work the Board has approved in the past. I in fact picks up at the existing vinyl bulkhead previously approved by the Board and continues to the north toward the entrance parking lot. The other component to this, originally Jeff was going to Board of Trustees 61 June 18, 2008 file, I think we can do these fuel tank replacements as administrative permits but since we were coming in for the bulkhead, we added it to this application, and I talked with the engineer to make sure we were showing hay bales around the work site when the fuel tank work was done. I don't show that work on my play plan but we submitted a site plan by Sea Level Mapping that identifies the location of the fuel pumps and then shows in detail where the pumps are going to be replaced. If the Board has any questions, I'm here to answer them. I'll note that there is a narrow gravel area that serves both as a walkway and also contains some plantings that is on the landward side of the bulkhead. That will be maintained and reestablished as it is now between the bulkhead and parking lot. I guess the only really out of the ordinary part to it is just on that most northerly corner as we sometimes talk about, we'll take that sort of odd jog out of the bulkhead and run it on a straight line. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC supports the application with the condition that the tanks are enclosed in a concrete large enough to told the volume of both tanks, which I see it is. LWRP has reviewed it as exempt. It does go on to ask for some best management practices, which I think you've already mentioned. If the proposed actions are approved, to further LWRP policies we ask for a silt fence and hay bales, which you already have on your survey. Installation of the silt boom, was that considered during replacement the vinyl bulkhead? MR. HERMAN: Yes, I think you could probably do that with the dredging. I think they've done that in the past. I did forget to mention the maintenance dredging in the area of the float so we'll make them employ a silt boom just to keep the -- it is a marina but there is obviously a lot of wetlands in Strong's so and they want to contain that. So that would be an assumed part of the permit. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'm just skimming the LWRP. All intertidal construction and excavation required installation of silt boom that will retain all suspended sediments within the immediate project area. Is there anyone else here who would like to make a comment on this application? (No response.) Any Board members' comments? (No response.) Field notes ask for specs on fuel tanks. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Scott reviewed them and got them from the site plan so. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So we'll ignore that. MR. HERMAN: If you want I can give you a much more detailed engineering plan that was submitted to the Health Department, but it was -- TRUSTEE KING: Are these above ground tanks? MR. STRONG: Jeff Strong, from Strong's. The whole purpose of replacing the tanks is they are single wall fiberglass tanks currently and Suffolk County as of 2010 is mandating that we eliminate them or replace them with double wall fiberglass tanks. Board of Trustees 62 June 18, 2008 TRUSTEE KING: I didn't think they are letting you put anything undergreund anymore. But it has to be double wall? MS. STRONG: Yes, the choice is either upland, which, envirenmentally, you know, as you know, it's all trade office, so we looked at that. Undergreund is more expensive but we think because it's closer to where it's used, it's prebably safer and better for space. The only thing I want to clarify as a question. You said the CAC, it was going to be surreunded by cement. TRUSTEE KING: They were thinking above greund and going areund it MR. STRONG: In this with the double wall tank, that's the whole purpose of the double wall that surrounds it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Who is doing the tank work? MR. STRONG: We haven't gotten that far yet. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion, if there are no further comments frem the Board or audience, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to appreve the application as stated for Streng's Marina. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Eh-Consultants on behalf of ANNE RENGANESCHI requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 112 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of existing timber bulkhead and backfill with appreximately 25 cubic yards clean sand from an approved upland source. Located: 2005 Westview Drive, Mattituck. We looked at this the other day. It is basically a streight forward application. It's attached to other bulkheads on either side. Everything is in a streight line and it is exempt from LWRP. And CAC supports it with a 12-foot non-turf buffer, and the bulkhead aligns with neighboring preperty on both sides and provisions made for public access. There is a dock out there but there is really, you can't walk along the foreshore there. At Iow tide there is some sand but at high tide there is not, and nobody really walks along there. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, En-Consultants, on behalf of the applicant. I don't have anything to add beyond what Jill has said except that just usually the Board's prectice is about ten-foot non-turf buffer for land that is essentially that narrew. I mean there is actually quite a bit of landscaping back there already. There is not all that much lawn. $o if we could just limit it to the standard ten feet, which also falls right in to where that catwalk is, that would be agreeable. TRUSTEE KING: That's what I have. Board of Trustees 63 June 18, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments? (No response.) Hearing none, I'll close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of En-Consultants on behalf of Anne Renganeschi as submitted with a condition of ten-foot non-turf buffer. And also, is there any reason to maybe use a silt boom there during construction; do you think? MR. HERMAN: Actually, what I want to mention, no. And the reason why is I do have a mistake on the plan that I want to correct and give to the Board. There is beach there and at Iow tide and I think, on the plan that you have I showed high and Iow water against the bulkhead. There is actually almost 40 feet of beach there at Iow tide. That's when the contractor would really be doing the work. And the reason that error occurred is I just was sloppy on the cross view. I showed a two-and-a-half foot tidal range instead of five feet. So I already corrected it on the plan, I just don't have stamped copies to give you. But I'll submit them to Lauren. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm familiar with the area. MR. HERMAN: I don't think they are working at high tide, so the silt boom wouldn't -- it's not an area where they are pumping with the tide up. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So if I put a condition the work to be done at Iow tide, would that be a problem? MR. HERMAN: I doubt it. You might want to stipulate if they work during high tide they need to employee a silt boom. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll add that. Work to be done at high tide needs a silt boom. That's my motion. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Number twelve, Patricia Moore on behalf of JOSEPH & JUNE IAVARONE requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing dwelling, construct new dwelling 75' from the bulkhead and install a new sanitary system more than 100' from the bulkhead. Located: 405 Woods Lane, Peconic. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MOORE: Yes, thank you. I have Mr. lavarone here with me today. If there are any questions I can't address, I'll defer to him. I want to give you, just very briefly and quickly, because of the storm, a little bit of history here. The Board approved a renovation and addition, significant addition to the house, that the house is, the existing house, is about 25 feet from the bulkhead. That was approved in 2006. Thereafter we went to the Zoning Board and at the hearing a group of neighbors came in and raised objections to our proposal. My client who, at that time had been debating between demolishing the existing, trying his best to keep it come making additions or demolishing is building new, the neighbors kind of pushed him over the edge on the decision and he Board of Trustees 64 June 18, 2008 ultimately withdrew his Zoning Board application, made the house conforming at 75 feet from the bulkhead. Therefore, not necessitating any variances. And we went to the DEC. We revised our application to the DEC because it was a demolition of the old house and a reconstruction of the house at 75 feet from the bulkhead. We got that approval. The Health Department has approved our sanitary system which is, as you point out, more than 100 feet away from the bulkhead. It's a brand new sanitary system, all conforming, and the Health Department is just waiting for a permit or a letter, either a letter of non-jurisdiction from this board or a permit that authorizes them to then release the Health Department application because of the demolition of the house. So we are here before you now because we want to demolish the existing house, which is a non-conforming structure and build a conforming structure. Again, zoning requires to us build 75 feet from the bulkhead. Your jurisdiction obviously is within 100 feet. But as far as our plans, we have incorporated the DEC conditions, which is a ten-foot non-turf buffer, hay bales on the landward side of the non-turf buffer during construction. The sanitary system that is a conforming system, properly constructed with groundwater elevations, abandoning the existing system when you are constructing the new system. Providing for drywells to cover all roof runoff issues. So we are here before you with a significantly conforming application. Again, the demolition of the existing house, obviously we have to get your permission. But the Building Department won't allow us to keep the old house and build a new one. So, I'm here to answer any questions you have, but I did want you to understand the history here because I did see the same group of neighbors that objected at the Zoning Board hearing here tonight and I want you to understand what prompted this whole new application.. TRUSTEE KING: We have a letter in the file here from a Dianne and William Douglas. They list three concerns. They are opposed to this construction. MS. MOORE: The Douglas' are exactly to the east, Their house is about 15 feet from the bulkhead. Their house is the one that you see, again, to the east, that has the garage with living space with no CO for living space. It essentially has two dwelling on the property and has objected to our application, so. For the record. TRUSTEE KING: I'm not going read the whole thing into the record. MS. MOORE: That's fine. They are here and I would not be surprised if they speak. TRUSTEE KING: We'll just enter it into the record. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This letter, for your information, was forwarded to the Building Department because a lot of the concerns should be addressed in the Building Department and are not in our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE KING: I'm just looking, on 268, he's got the setback from the proposed residence is 70 feet from the bulkhead as measured on the survey and therefore the proposed action may require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. MS. MOORE: Actually it's 75 feet. Board of Trustees 65 June 18, 2008 TRUSTEE KING: I'm scaling it off here and I'm getting 75 feet. MS. MOORE: We had it done by the surveyor on the plans TRUSTEE KING: That's what I scaled it offto, so. It's exactly 75 feet. MS. MOORE: Exactly, yes. TRUSTEE KING: So that, the 70 feet is an error. MS. MOORE: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And that's for the Building Department to determine, anyway. MS. MOORE: What would happen IS during post construction of the foundation, we have to provide a foundation plan and the surveyor will have to certify it, so be sure you are at 75 feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the septic? TRUSTEE KING: The septic is out of our jurisdiction. MS. MOORE: The septic, I originally asked for letter of non-jurisdiction. We kind of wrapped it up into this. So that's fine. But it does hold up the sanitary approval. TRUSTEE KING: It's 150 feet. It's well out of our jurisdiction. MS. MOORE: And I would point out that the sanitary system was placed more than 150 feet from the only well or, the well on the Douglas property. Part of the design of the sanitary system was to make sure that we were compliant with the well. Even though there is public water in the street, Mr. Douglas has chosen not to connect to public water, so our sanitary system is designed around that well. TRUSTEE KING: Do you know where the old sanitary is, Pat? MS. MOORE: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: We would like to see that abandoned and filled. MS. MOORE: The Health Department mandates it. MR. IAVARONE: Joseph lavarone. Basically as you are looking at the house, the old house, it's closer to the Lutzer's (sic) side of the property, probably about ten feet from the property line, and I would judge about 20, probably closer here, about 20 to 30 feet from the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: CAC resolved to support the application. CAC supports the application with the following conditions. 20-foot non-turf buffer, drywells and gutters to contain roof runoff; the old cesspool pool is abandoned; the driveway is relocated it the left side of the property in order to avoid removal of trees and the driveway is pervious and; the removal of trees above eight inches DBH. What does DBH stand for?. MS. MOORE: Caliber. Diameter of caliber. TRUSTEE KING: Diameter at breast height. MS. MOORE: I would just point out that the DEC, just so you understand, I submitted the DEC permit, I think, for your records. The DEC has required a pervious driveway. The DEC, approved materials and no CCA, the oil base products. It will be a pebble driveway TRUSTEE KING: Bluestone, something like that? MS. MOORE: Yes, bluestone or pebble. As far as the non-turf buffer, the DEC recommends a ten-foot non-turf. The area is already non-turf because it's sandy so. Board of Trustees 66 June 18, 2008 TRUSTEE KING: In the field notes we have 20-foot non-turf buffer. MS. MOORE: Well -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what we would like to see. MS. MOORE: The DEC felt ten feet was adequate. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we feel 20 feet is. TRUSTEE KING: Do I hear 157 MR. IAVARONE: Can we get 15? I'll compromise. I'm very happy with that. TRUSTEE KING: We'll stay with the 20. Sorry, we'll stay with the 20 feet. You can do plantings or something. Just no turf MS. MOORE: Just no sod, grass. TRUSTEE KING: What else? The inconsistency is basically because it's less than 100 feet. When you look at the old house and how close it is to the bulkhead and look at the septic system and how close it is to the water. Now, the whole house is being moved landward quite a bit. The septic system is entirely out of our jurisdiction. We are getting a 20-foot non-turf buffer in there. With all these things it brings it into consistency with the LWRP. That would be my recommendation on that end of it. Are there any other comments on this? From the Board? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Comments from the audience. MS. DOUGLAS: Hi, my name is Dianne Douglas. This is my husband Bill. It seems we have been a little misrepresented tonight. I don't know. But anyway, we live directly next door to the lavarone's. We've owned property on the north fork for the last 17 years. We lived in the current house for the last seven years. Almost seven years. What we are asking for tonight is that you make, I guess, a difficult decision and balance our property rights and the neighbors' property rights with the lavarone's legitimate right to improve their property. We don't have a problem at all with that. We do have a worry and a concern about Richmond Creek and it's been designate as you know, I'm sure, as a critical environmental area. And it's fragile and precious. It seems to us based on this difficult drawing that the proposed house is 5,000 square feet. That's a really, really big house on that property, in that neighborhood. And it will be less than, you know, it will be less than 100 feet from the water, and it's situated in a flood zone. So they'll have to take down a lot of trees. I think a lot of things will change as a result of this building. Again, we don't have a problem with them building a house. That's fine, or the demolition. But something that is smaller. We are concerned about runoff, about the amount and velocity of runoff that will be really be altered by this huge footprint. The existing house is about a thousand square feet, maybe a little more, and it seems the tear down and the construction of this larger house, will change the patterns, the runoff patterns and I guess the elevation, I'm not an engineer, but I guess the elevation of the whole property and contours and so on. We are wondering whether there has been a soil test to determine whether drainage is possible on this, given that amount Board of Trustees 67 June 18, 2008 of structure. I understand that two inches of rainfall creates 3,700 gallons of water on a roof that is 3,000 square feet. 3,700 gallons, where does that go? It has to go into the creek, I think, in part. Again, I'm not an engineer. But it seems to make sense. And I think it may go into the adjacent properties. I think the property to the other side, I think the lavarone property slopes down a bit. Again, I'm not sure about the elevations but I think that's true. The existing vegetation will be removed. The old Oak forest will be destroyed and I think this will substantially change the character of the neighborhood. In addition to opposing a threat will to Richmond Creek. As I said, we have well water. We enjoy. It's clean, we get it tested once a year. We did not want another bill, frankly, so we kept our well water. The other thing we are concerned is the precedent this sets. You let one mansion go up, does this mean every time somebody on Richmond Creek, which I think is different than lot's of other areas here, every time someone comes along and make this kind of proposal, they'll tear down a modest house and build a mansion in its place. That's our worry. It seems that it's too much activity and it's too close to the creek. So we urge the Trustees to see if you can scale down the scope of this project. We also would ask that the lavarone's plant privacy trees between our two properties. We would be happy to participate in the cost of that. I do not, we don't want to be contentious at all. We don't want to fight or anything like that. We are neighbors. I really value that. I think we are all stewards of the environment. The lavarone's are out there fishing all the time. The kids are crabbing. We are out raising oysters at the end of our dock. We don't want to do anything but enjoy the creek and protect it as much as we can. So I hope we can develop a plan that adequately addresses, I think, their legitimate needs and our legitimate needs, and we hope that it will be something that is in the best interest of preserving Richmond Creek overall. I think that's all we have to say. Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I want to address some of your comments, and I think Jill is talking about it right now. The town does now have a drainage code that any building or construction that is done, they must maintain their runoff. I mean it's certain come to the forefront of many townships that this is a problem and our Town Code now requires that they do. And another comment I want to make, I don't know, I'm speaking for myself, but it is very frustrating, and taking nothing away from your family and your home but having lived here and seeing small homes that are built up as huge and as tremendously as they are, we have some restrictions and some restraints in the town but in my opinion we don't have enough. And I think it is a shame that these small parcels are having these huge buildings. But we don't have the legislation now and that's something that possibly needs to be worked on further. MS. DOUGLAS: Is the house going to be 5,000 square feet? Board of Trustees 68 June 18, 2008 (Inaudible. Audience members speaking en masse.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Time out. Time out. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you have any comments, please address the Board. MS. DOUGLAS: There aren't any amhitectural plans. We went to read the record and all that was available is this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We don't require architectural plans. MS. DOUGLAS: I know that. It looks to me to be 5,000 square feet, the bedrooms, you know. MR. IAVARONE: May I address the Board? TRUSTEE KING: Sure. MR. IAVARONE: And I would like to also address my neighbors as well. First of all, I have been living at 405 Wood Lane with my family, four children, my wife, six of us, for close to 15 years. I've raised my family there, I'm a part of the community. I have brothers cousins, uncles out here. I love Richmond Creek. I love where I am. I could have chosen to move but I decided to stay at 405 Wood Lane. When we constructed the original house I wanted to keep the original character of it. T I tried to build it where it was and we came across some opposition, then I opted to take this as a secondary plan. As far as the house and problems addressed by my neighbors, the Douglas', I wish they would have asked me these questions and I could have answered them. Maybe we would not have gotten to this point. I would have gladly showed them the plans. I showed them the plans for the first house before we even started. The house is 3,400 square feet of living space and garage. I can document that if you like. Again, this is on the record and I could show you anything you can like as far as plans. There will be seven drywells for the runoff as per the town. Supposedly, that's more than at adequate. As far as tree removal, I'm only taking down whatever trees need to be taken down to build the structure. I want to keep the integrity of the property. I love the wooden environment. This is something I want to keep. You have my word I'll only take down what I have to take down for construction purposes. I don't think that's an unreasonable request. I'll take down what has to get taken down. As far as privacy trees, sharing the expense, I'm more than happy to do that. Basically I want to stay here for a long time. This is a house that I want to pass down to my next generation. I'm building it with the anticipation of being able to have my grandchildren over. I want to retire at this home. This is where I'm at with this. I want to be part of the community. That's all I have to say. Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE KING: It's a two-story home, isn't it? MR. IAVARONE: Yes, but it's not completely finished. Just part of it. It's a lot of roof line. MR. PENN: My name is Charles Penn and my wife and I just purchased the house less than a month ago, I think, on Richmond Creek, at 775 Wood Lane and we've had the pleasure of appreciating the bounty of Board of Trustees 69 June 18, 2008 Richmond Creek and the pristine environment there, and we wanted to live there and were lucky enough to find this house. And I'm glad to hear, because I would like to be good neighbors with the lavarone's and the Douglas' and everybody else on the creek. My concern is I have the same concerns that Dianne expressed, about runoff and the character of the neighborhood, and I'm somewhat encouraged to hear that the house is not what I had expected it was going to be. But I would like to, just in support of what Dianne said, t'm very concerned about the pristine nature of the creek and the neighborhood and I would like it to remain that way. And I'm sure that you will take that into consideration in whatever decisions you make. Thank you. MS. VACCARI: My name is Christine Vaccari. I live at 2470 Wells Road. I'm a full-time resident here. I live here with my husband and our 11-year old daughter. We love Richmond Creek. We use the creek and we are concerned about this precious body of water. We had a neighbor who moved out a couple of houses down because there was so much activity on the creek and the neighbors became like just so boisterous on the creek that they said that the quietness and the serenity of the creek was being upset. And I guess when I heard that this home was being built, I'm visualizing it being very big and just a lot of people fitting into this home and just making a lot of noise and of course the other things, as Dianne mentioned, the runoff, and you know, contaminating the creek with the runoff, and basically our main concern is the drainage and preserving the creek. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you anybody else? MR. REILLY: 2260 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. How do you know what the environmental impact a house of that size will be on this environment. This is Richmond Creek. Nothing like that is on Richmond Creek. What tests have been made? What statements, what environmental impact studies have been done? And for one thing, when you talk about changing the character, not just the environmental character but the built character of the neighborhood, this will significantly alter the built character of the neighborhood. This is your history. I'm not going to be around four generations hence, but your grandchildren will be and your great-grandchildren will be. So you can have Cutchogue or you can have Commack. This is the beginning of the slippery slope toward the McMansions. That's your decision. Think about it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As Peggy stated before, our code as it is now does not have enough restrictions on the size. A lot of that is determined by the Building Department. The Building Code, I should say. MS. REILLY: Good evening, my name is Cumming Reilly, I'm wife of Charles Reilly, I live at 2260 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue, not very far from the Douglas' house. I'm happy to hear and I didn't plan to speak, but in response to the Trustee's comment about no current codes restricting the establishment of big houses on small properties. I would like to address the issue of change. And I think the unbridled desire to build because you can afford has to have some kind of measure in Board of Trustees 70 June 18, 2008 terms of the common interest and our environment. And let's look at China and the government doesn't have any codes right now and the building frenzy is going on and let's see and look around and I think it is upon your shoulder that you make reasonable decisions in deciding what should be built, what shouldn't be built, rather than looking at codes and I think we should start from today, either you make a reasonable decision or you allow such big houses to be built on small properties, endangering the environment around us and the creek especially. And that's all I have to say. I'm pleading with the committee here to make an intelligent decision. Thank you, for your time MS. HULSE: From a legal standpoint, this Board does not have the discretion to indiscriminately deny things permissible by the code. So even if they would personally choose to, they don't have the ability to do that and I have to advise them they don't have the ability to do that or they'll be bringing a lawsuit on their hands. The way Jill and Peggy have both described it is accurate. It's legislation that has to be passed by the Town Board and the Building Department issues are mostly what you are addressing are also regulated by the code. So that's where the parameters are. So this Board doesn't really have the discretion to opt out of following the code. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to point out that that area does have homes that are 3,500 square feet. At least. Thers are several of them, most notably at the end of Indian Neck Lane. I know because I designed the air conditioning and heating for those homes so I know how big they are. They do exist. MS. DOUGLAS: 3,500. We are talking about what's on the creek. They are on a big piece of property, not on a 100 foot piece of property. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's the building code. That's the definition. The issue that was brought up is drainage and size. And those do exist there. MS. WIER: Linda Wier. I'm not in a small house but I have an acre where the drainage can go. That is my contention is that they are building a big house on a small piece of property and where is the drainage going to go? It's going to go to the west. I'm also concerned how they are going to build, how high they're going to build, their elevation. I don't know that. That makes a big difference also. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's also a building code. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How big is the property? MR. IAVARONE: Over three quarters of acre. MS. WlER: But it's 100 feet wide, so all that drainage will go to either side, to the neighbors. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The new drainage code, Chapter 236 says that all the drainage has to be contained on the person's property. And if they have to, what they have to do is they have to direct that drainage, that roof runoff into drywells. So it's not going to be just running off and going off. It goes into drywells, and an engineer has to calculate that. It has to. It's the code. MS. WIER: Who enforces the code? There are so many things that are Board of Trustees 71 June 18, 2008 not enfomed in this town. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I understand that. But that's the Town Code. The drainage code. It's not the Trustees. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: We to compliance checks. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As far as what they applied for with the drywells, we'll make sure the drywells are there, as far as what our permit says. MS. MOORE: Also I would point out the Building Department will not issue a CO without the gutters, drywells, gutters, leaders going into the drywells. Actually the enforcement today is much more strict than when any of the homes surrounding us were ever built. In fact their drywells probably go straight to the ground and permeate over the land rather than going into drywells. Very unusual existing conditions for old houses to actually put drywells in. It would be smart if they did but that's not the requirement. Now it is. Any of you who renovate will be obligated to do the same thing MR. IAVARONE: I also upgraded to six-inch gutters on the house, which even absorbs more of the roof runoff. MS. WlER: My other concern are the trees. When they submitted their first plan, I don't know how many trees they cut down. But they cut down a lot. I'm across the creek and I could hear it for days. So Mr. lavarone says he's only going to cut down so many trees. I hope somebody enforces that. Okay? We have nothing that we can do about it. When it happens, it happens. You know. I'm the only person I think on Richmond Creek that did not take down the hundred foot buffer. I have all my trees that were originally there. I have everything that was there, because that's what I was told I was supposed to do. But everybody else comes in and they cut everything down. I just don't understand when you make a rule or a law, why it's not followed. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? Comments from the Board? (No response.) Peggy brought up a good point. We wrestled with these larger houses on smaller lots and we tried and didn't get anywhere with it. Being no other comments, I'll make a motion that we close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: In my mind I know it's a large house. But I'm also looking at the closeness of the original house to the water, septic system close to the water. I think in my own mind I think this new residence is going to have less impact on the waterfront than the old house and the old septic had. I think it's an improvement, putting a 20-foot buffer in behind the bulkhead. A new drainage system. Everybody was concerned about the runoff. I know with this new code now there won't be any runoff from this going into the creek. Not in my mind. I think we did all we can with it. The septic is entirely out of our jurisdiction. The driveway will be pervious. I would like to make a motion to approve this application with a 20-foot buffer and pervious driveway. It was found inconsistent because of the setback. Like I say, if you can get the newstructures, Board of Trustees 72 June 18, 2008 even though it's larger, if you get it landward from the old structure, it's a step on the right direction. I just wish we had something in the code to limit the size of some of these waterfront homes. Right now we can't do it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I want to reiterate. I'll be very short. When we sit up here we can't always vote by our gut or by our heart. And unfortunately there have been times when I want to vote one way and as Lori has said, I'm obligated by the position we hold that I must vote for what is in our law and our code. And we have revised it twice and I'll say that I will continue to pursue and when revisions come up that I'll bring again to the table that we have a more stringent, look at more stringent restrictions on these smaller pieces and property and not allow them these larger buildups. But we can't address that tonight. It's something we have to keep on the forefront of our changes and our revisions. But tonight's decision has to be as per our existing code. TRUSTEE KING: I think with the septic being moved out, the non-turf buffer. MS. DOUGLAS: Could I say one more thing. I just want clarification. The proposed house is going to be 3,400 square feet. MR. IAVARONE: Including the garage. Living space plus the garage. There are a lot the peaks and valleys. I know you looked at the footprint of the house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are in the middle of a resolution, if you could discuss that out in the hallway. TRUSTEE KING: With all the things we have done as far as the drainage, the buffer, septic out of our jurisdiction. I think it brings it into compliance with LWRP. I make the motion it's found consistent and also make a motion to approve the application as submitted. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Pat, if we can have revised plans showing the 20-foot non-turf buffer on it. MS. MOORE: Can I come in and change it to 20? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MS. MOORE: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 13, Patricia Moore on behalf of JUDY TEEVAN & PAULA DIDONATO requests a Wetland Permit to replace wood decking around pool, wood deck, wood walkway and wood retaining wall with bluestone pavers and eight-inch concrete retaining wall to pool deck level. Located: 325 Willow Point Road, Southold. I understand there was a violation issued. Sorry, let me back up. This was brought before us at the hearing last month. It was postponed. There was a violation. It's my understanding the violation has been taken care of. MS. HULSE: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So we can move forward with this. (3AC resolved to not support this as-built work. The (3AC recommends drywells Board of Trustees 73 June 18, 2008 installed for the pool backwash and the impervious paving is replaced with pervious paving and curbing.. MS. MOORE: Can I respond to that? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on. And the proposed action is found inconsistent under the LWRP because the actions are within the minimum 50 foot setback from the tidal wetland boundary. So is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MOORE: Yes. Thank you. I'm here. Last but not least. Almost last but not least. Ms. Teevan is here. I wanted you to meet, well you've all met each other at one point or other. She wants at one point or other to say something, but not at this point. I want to cladfy all, the replacement of the wood material was replaced with pervious bluestone stone, fresh bluestone material. There was no cement used so that in fact that delayed our process because originally we wanted to be sure that we were replacing wood with pervious material. $o everything that has been replaced was just, the wood was replaced with the bluestone. On sand. And that was intentionally done that way. The area that are the walkways ways and the area that was wood decking around the pool, essentially the wood walkways were replaced and the wood material that was around the pool. I would point out that all of these existing structures were done probably in the '70s, I think. They have been repaired over time and ultimately it was decided to change it from wood to bluestone, that was the only change. And as far as drywells for the pool pump, is there one there or?. It's not a backwash system. It's a dry system so therefore it doesn't require the drywell. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. MS. MOORE: I would just point out that actually I'm the one who told you guys there was a violation because it was my client was away and it was done after I had made the application, while I was posting it, the work got done. So if anything I'm the one who came to you and said I'm sorry, it's been done much to all of our dismay, and so just understand that it was us coming to you saying we understand we are at fault and we'll move forward, so. If you recall, one issue has never been actually answered. I apologize. The bulkhead permit had to cut off a pipe that was a pre-existing pipe for drainage. We have still not gotten word back on how that is to be corrected and the highway superintendent, nobody's told us. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Every storm water meeting that I go to I bring that up and I have gotten no answers and I said this has got to be a priority, we have to fix this. And I suggested that we get all the neighbors and have a specific meeting on this because they have to do their part, too, because it is clay and the town can't control all that road runoff. MS. MOORE: And it's town road. The drainage is town road drainage, essentially. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And basically the only solution is get all the neighbors to conform to the new Chapter 236 and then the town to do what they can on the drainage. That's the only thing that can Board of Trustees 74 June 18, 2008 work. It won't take care 100% but we have to get everybody together and I'm having trouble getting our people together to get far enough to get you guys together. MS. MOORE: I know she checks with me and I check with the office. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I keep bringing it up to the storm water runoff committee. Our next meeting is the 24th of June and I'll bring it up again. TRUSTEE KING: Nothing is preventing you from building the bulkhead. MS. MOORE: Yes, when you cut off that pipe, what's going to happen to the water? TRUSTEE KING: The read will probably flood. MS. MOORE: That's not a good solution. TRUSTEE KING: Then maybe will do something about it. You said it's all read runoff. It's not all read runoff. Everybody is putting their runoff on the read, then it becomes our read runoff. That's the problem there. MS. MOORE: I don't know who has drywells and who doesn't. TRUSTEE KING: If everybody contains their own runoff, the town would very easily be able to take care of the read runoff. It's a tough situation. MS. MOORE: That may be the solution to get everybody to do it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else here who would like to speak on behalf of this application. MS. TEEVAN: So the reason I wanted to come out and be here is to represent myself and the property and to just personally apologize. It was not the intent to do the work in advance of having a permit, and it was a series of miscommunications between myself and the contractor, but I don't blame the contractor. I take full responsibility because it's my property and it's my house. So it was basically a replacement of what was very old and decaying rotten wood, to replace it with something that is permeable and I think all of what was there was permitted and I think it was replacement of that. The intention was certainly to get a permit before we proceeded with this. So, thank you. MS. MOORE: I could say it a dozen times but unless you hear it directly from the horse's mouth. TRUSTEE BERGEN: A couple of points. First off, I appreciate what you have stated here tonight because the Board was frustrated when they went out there and found this because we had specifically met with you in the field previously where this project was discussed and we had said you need to have a permit. So the Board did get very frustrated when they went out and saw this as an as-built permit. So I appreciate what you said here tonight. MS. TEEVAN: I came home from Arizona and was pleasantly surprised to see it done but the disappointment was in kind of the way it happened. It was hard to get in touch with me out there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There was one item from our previous visit. There had been, it looked like a runoff issue from the house where there was a drainage pipe that went down underground to the bulkhead. And it looked like when we were out there that underground drainage pipe is still them. Board of Trustees 75 June 18, 2008 MS. TEEVAN: It's been cut off. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's been cut off. The pipe is still there but it's been cut off. MS. TEEVAN: It's been cut off. So the pipe is still there but the pipe has been disconnected from the drain. It's been cut. I'm happy to have anyone take a look at that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have a picture here though of a downspout going down and not connecting to what appears might be a drywell. MS. MOORE: Which side of the house? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll show you the picture. It might be easier if you saw the actual picture. MS. TEEVAN: That's the front of the house. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The only thing we were at was the back of the house. I call it the front on the water. MS. TEEYAN: What's the question with that? TRUSTEE BERGEN: We were curious. We thought it was going to a drywell. You are saying it does not. MS. TEEVAN: That's the one going -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Going out to the comer of the property. That's how it's been cut off, but it just drains off. Right now it appears water comes out of that downspout and comes right down into that drain and then continue on down to the creek. MS. TEEVAN: So this whole thing has as to be taken out but it needs to feed directly into the ground. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. But there should be a drywell put in there to catch that rain water. What you said is cut off, it's not really because that water comes out of the downspout and into that pipe. MS. MOORE: So it needs to be connected to a drywell well. I think we talked about that with regard to, when we talked about the bulkhead. So we said Costello was here that night. He said he would put in a drywell when that job is done. That's the intention. Do we have to do it before the bulkhead. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I want to make it as part of approving this application because the application was found inconsistent under LVVRP. So what I would like to do is a condition here, number one, you stated that the bluestone pavers are pervious. Number two, you said that the pool does not have a backwash system. And so I'm going to ask that this particular water runoff issue from the roof be addressed with a drywell, as we talked about previously. I'll make that as a condition of approval. MS. MOORE: All right. The same guys are doing, unfortunately, Costello is doing our work and he's waiting for the answer on the pipe. So we'll have a Catch-22. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We can have this, this part can be remedied prior to the bulkhead being put in. It doesn't have to be connected to the bulkhead construction. Are there any other comments from the Board? (No response.) I'll make a to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. Board of Trustees 76 June 18, 2008 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve number thirteen on behalf of Judy Teevan and Paula Didonato as stated at 325 Willow Point Road, and with the condition that the one downspout that right now does not lead to a drywell on that back corner of the highways, that a drywall is installed on contain that runoff. That combined with the fact that this pool does not require a backwash system and the bluestone pavers are pervious, will deem this as consistent under LWRP. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MS. MOORE: Thank you. MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, one more quick clarification on Walker. You guys went so fast. The pool house, I want to make sure when I get a permit it says electric and water. Because you both acknowledge it's already there. It's not habitable. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I went back and retracted the no plumbing and no electric and I said no habitation, no expansion of the current plumbing. MS. MOORE: Fine. Thank you. I don't want to go back and then have that. Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number fifteen Garrett Strang, Architect, on behalf of 2000 BROADWATERS LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x124' fixed catwalk, a 2.5'x12' ramp and 6x20' floating dock. Located: 2000 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. Do we want to do 15 and 16 at the same time? (Board responds in the negative.) These were opened last month, right. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, 15 was. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: This was already opened and I don't remember exactly why we tabled it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We didn't have an LWRP. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is that what it was; we didn't have an LWRP? We do now. LWRP has found this to be inconsistent noting the proposed dock may not be permitted over vegetated wetlands located within a critical environmental area pursuant to 275-11. That area is designated by New York State as a significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat. Any activity would substantially degrade the water quality of Cutchogue Harbor or the adjacent wetlands and creeks. It does offer some mitigation measures that can be done here. Avoidance of potentially adverse impacts; avoiding ecologically sensitive areas; preventing fragmentation of intact habitat areas; it suggests possible moodngs instead of the dock; catwalk. Through a site visit the proposed project location at the proposed project location it appears the neighbor's vessel to the northeast is sitting on the bottom. Whereas the proposed placement Board of Trustees 77 June 18, 2008 of the float will not extend beyond the neighbor's and the limited water depth indicated on the site plan, the proposed float and attached vessel could have potential adverse impacts to the public trust bottom land through sitting of the vessel or float and prop dredging from the vessel on the bottom. That was the extent of the report. CAC, to reiterate, did resolve to support the application with the condition open-grate decking is used on the catwalk. Would anybody else like to make a comment on this application? MR. STRANG: Garrett Strang on behalf of 2000 Broadwaters LL¢. I know we've had a field meeting. We made some modifications to the original plan in the hopes of mitigating some of the issues there. In looking at the site and in looking at the site plan, it's the only location where we can, on the site, where we can place the catwalk and the dock to have the least amount of impact over the wetland area. There is, where the proposed dock is located, is also where it's the most amount of water at the float, at 2.7 feet. I'm not sure what, at the time of the inspection, previous inspection, made reference in the LWRP, which I have not seen a copy of, of a boat that was on the bottom. Two-and-a-half feet of water at Iow tide should be ample water for most boats, of the nature that would come in and out of that creek, anyway. I mean I think in our application we made every effort to try to balance the ecology with the needs of an applicant to have access to the water. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: They revised the design of this and moved it a little bit? MR. STRANG: We revised the design after the discussion with the Board, we made the catwalk shorter and made the float parallel, if you will, or in alignment as opposed to perpendicular which, in that effort, shortened the catwalk. We made changes to four-inch square posts in lieu of the original six-inch piles. We were always proposing to use the grating for the decking. And we narrowed the catwalk down to I think three feet from the four, as we originally applied for. And we lowered it from four feet to two feet. And we have eliminated the posts from extending beyond the catwalk. They are now flush with the catwalk. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Anybody else have comment or questions? (No response.) I think the changes made were pretty straight forward. MS. MIKULAS: Robyn Mikulas, we live at 1900. When we were here last time one of the things that was supposed to be brought to the table is the location of our dock in comparison to where that dock is. There is supposed to be something. MR. STRANG: It's on the plan. MS. MIKULAS: So you could see how close the two docks will be, if this dock is approved. And also when you do see the other plans you'll see where the pathway is and there is a lot of things that once you see the house plans you'll see this location of that dock is really, it's going to change the nature of the vegetation all the way down the whole side of our property and down to the Board of Trustees 78 June 18, 2008 wetlands. And it's really, it's right on the property line. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have a question. A couple of questions. Your house, your property is immediately adjacent to this property, correct? MS. MIKULAS: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we saw there-- we didn't see docks there. We saw remnants of some pilings. MS. MIKULAS: Yes, and when we bought the house we were told the dock will be grandfathered in because there was an existing dock. It was a little bit there when we first moved in and we sort of took the boards away because they were going to end up in the water. So that's what we were told, we would have to, if it was grandfathered in we were under the impression we would have to have to put it in the same location or thereabouts, and that's our intent. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That would have to be applied for and considered by the Board also. Right now, what you had presented was you had a dock next door and we went and looked, there was no dock. There were a couple of old pilings but the only dock that we saw was two properties down. And that's the one referred to with the boat that was sitting on the bottom at Iow tide. So I just wanted to clarify to make sure we are talking of the same thing here. MS. MIKULAS: Yes, on the other side of us. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. The other thing we noted when we were down there, is there is certainly, somebody has been blowing or moving, dumping leaves and grass clippings within our jurisdiction along this property line. I'm not saying who, but somebody has been doing that. That's a violation of the Town Code. So please do not be putting yard debris down in the wetlands around the bacharus and down in the wetland area. MS. MIKULAS: It's not down there. It's up around the top. TRUSTEE BERGEN; It was in our area. I'm also saying please don't do that. It's also now somebody else's property and I don't know if the property owner wants you dumping yard debris. That's between the two of you. But what I just wanted to address is just not to place any yard debris down in the wetlands there. This as proposed, I believe, meets the minimum setback of 15 feet off the property line. So when you talk about what the Town Code is as far as docks and the distance to the property, Town Code stays minimum of 15 feet. That's what is on this plan. MS. MIKULAS: It's now 15. It was 12. So it's definitely 15 now. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. MS. MIKULAS: I wanted to point that out. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments or questions? MR. MIKULAS: Rich Mikulas. Along with dock issues, the house plan creates a little bit of a problem for us. I know that's the next thing but I think they are kind of tied together. I would like to think in my own mind they are tied together. I don't know if you want me to address that now or if you just want to go through the dock situation. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll just stick to the dock now and address the house in the next. Board of Trustees 79 June 18, 2008 MR. MIKULAS: It basically has to do with water runoff from the street; not the adjacent property but from the street, and how that whole side of our property line can be affected. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll address that with the next application. MS. MIKULAS: The only thing is if you could look at the house thing and you can see where the walkway to this dock is set up, can that be addressed? Is that part of the house? Because if you look, all the vegetation is gone. They are right up to the border of the property and they have a path coming straight down. So if there is already concerns about the wetlands, how can you remove huge sections over there? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We'll take a look at that on the next application. MS. MIKULAS: I think one has to do with the other. If you approve one and then get on the other one -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I did want to address the dock. I was on some of the inspections where all of the adjustments and changes were made and I think that you have made a tremendous effort to cut it back and improve it as environmentally as possible. However after waiting for the LWRP I would have to say I do concur. At some point we have to step back and say we are looking at our shorelines with different eyes and with this being a critical habitat area and the comments that Scott Hilary has made in his LWRP I would be inclined not to approve this permit tonight. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments? TRUSTEE BERGEN: With all due with respect to the LWRP evaluation and what Peggy just said, this Board just within the last few months approved a modification to one dock immediately to the south, trying to get my compass rose right here. And there is another dock also to the south. We know to the north already there is remnants of a dock and there is another dock immediately to the north of that. So I do not have an objection to a dock being put here because thers is already docks in this area. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I just want to say that we have said in the past you can't make decisions on docks with past practice. We have to go with what we have learned today. And also to say there is one down east or up west or whatever, we also say that we address each dock application in its own right, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. We do TRUSTEE KING: This reminds me of another application we had, segmenting another section of marsh. Quite frankly I just, I'm torn between what's right what isn't right. MR. STRANG: May I just make a brief comment? I appreciate and hear and try to be as sensitive as I can be to the environment and when we need to do, and I think, as I said previously, we have made that effort here, which has been acknowledged by Ms. Dickerson. But this is my only personal opinion and observations, to not have a catwalk across the marsh and say you can have a mooring or you can have a float but you have to walk across the marsh to get to it. To me that is more degrading to the marsh to have foot traffic constantly back and forth across the marsh land than it is to have a well designed, well installed and well executed catwalk Board of Trustees 80 June 18, 2008 across it. I think it's an asset as opposed to a liability. I think not having a catwalk is more of a lability to the wetlands. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I tend to agree. I undemtand Peg's opinion because I happen to hold an opinion of this area as well. And I'm not particularly thrilled at the development, but I think you are right. I think with the open grating and bringing it down, makes it a little bit more palatable in a sense that the plants can still grow, the shading isn't as bad and it doesn't impact the environment as much as the real hard structures would have. So I think in lieu of saying no, I think it's a pretty good mitigation. So I'll vote for it. But I do understand the environmental impacts that could be construed hera. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's typical of what makes our job so difficult, you know. TRUSTEE KING: Will it be a seasonal float? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If that's what you want to make it. TRUSTEE KING: I would strongly suggest that. It will probably be a requirement from the DEC because it's in less than four feet of water. MR. STRANG: We don't have a challenge with a seasonal float. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comment, questions? TRUSTEE KING: I don't think you can downsize it much more. MR. STRANG: I think we've made it about as small as we can and still make it usable. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion to approve the application of 2000 Broadwaters to construct a 4x124 fixed catwalk as describe in number 15 with the stipulation the float installed is to be seasonal float; noting that the new plans on catwalk do include mitigation attempts by utilizing the grated catwalk and reducing the height of the catwalk down to two feet. And I would suggest that that would then be consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: I wonder if we can get that down to 18 inches. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It might have a problem with the DEC. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What are the boards, 2x10; 2x87 MR. STRANG: That's a good question. 2x8s. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If they are 2x8s and you want to bring it town to 18 inches. MR. STRANG: It's 2x8 joists then we've got the and horizontal girders between the posts that the joists rest on. So you are down almost 16 inches there. It's going to be almost in the water. The other challenge with getting it that Iow, too, in that area, you are all aware, when we have the higher than ordinary tides, that becomes a big, broad body of water, and with a good wind blowing it gets a good chop on it and it's going to be pounding on the underside of that dock, even though it's open, since they are only 4x4's now that we could use, it will want to pick those up. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: 4x4s in the marsh? MR. STRANG: Yes. There is a good likelihood the DEC will make us Board of Trustees 81 June 18, 2008 do 4x4's all the way out. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee King, aye. Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Dickerson, nay.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: For the record, Trustee Dickerson voted nay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 16, Garrett Strang, Amhitect, on behalf of 200 BROADWATERS LLC requests a Wetland Permit to replace the existing two-car garage with a new single-family dwelling with deck, terrace, sanitary system, lawn area with retaining walls and path to dock, and drywells to contain roof runoff. Located: 2000 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. This was reviewed by the Board and CAC resolved to support the application with the following conditions: That the retaining wall is removed from the plans because it would change the flow of water and adversely affect the neighbor's property; there should be no change to the woodland, wetland habitat and plant habitat; no change to the existing grade; no lawn or disturbance to the FEMA flood line; limit the number of trees being removed and; installation of a line of staked hay bales prior to construction activities. LWRP has found this application to be inconsistent pursuant to section 275-3, the proposed action are within the minimum 100 foot setback. So it's a setback issue. It also notes that it's part of Hay Water Cove/Cutchogue Harbor/wetlands game and fish wildlife habitat area. It's asking to help mitigate that to require the applicant to maximize a 75-foot perpetual non-disturbance buffer maintaining the existing indigenous vegetation. That's basically it. Anybody here who would like to address this application? MR. STRANG: Garrett Streng, Architect, on behalf of 2000 Broadwaters LLC. This is the first time I'm hearing some of the comments from the CAC and LWRP. I'm at a loss at a moment as to how to even respond to some of them. If I understand correctly, one of the CAC recommendations was to not allow anything below the FEMA flood line at elevation eight, am I correct? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No lawn or disturbance to the FEMA flood line. And LWRP recommended a 75 foot non-disturbance buffer, essentially. MR. STRANG: I mean, in a perfect world that would not be a problem but in this particular situation a lot is shallow given the fact the wetlands come up as far as they do on to the property and we do have a front yard setback requirement to meet for zoning. So if we were to begin to do a 75-foot non-disturbance buffer, we proposed a 50-foot non-disturbance buffer. If we were to do a 75-foot non-disturbance buffer it would put it right at the footprint of the terrace and the deck that comes off the house. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I see the 50-foot non-disturbance buffer. 90 foot from the wetland line to the house. MR. STRANG: To the house itself. In front of the house is a deck. Board of Trustees 82 June 18, 2008 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 75 for the deck. MR. STRANG: And below the deck is a terrace, at grade level, is what's proposed. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Now, the proposed retaining wall is at 50 foot. I believe the Board did not want to see that there. MR. STRANG: There was discussion in the field about that as well. I brought that back to my client. His concern is that it's the only place in the yard where you could have a play area for the children that would not be playing right adjacent to the street. And the idea of the retaining wall was one where he could have a little bit of a flattened lawn area so the kids could kick a ball and not have it run down into the wetland area and have to be retrieving things from the wetlands area. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How high the wall offthe ground? MR. STRANG: At the lowest it's about six inches. At the highest it's about 30 inches. That's the maximum. I don't know if there is a way to mitigate the Board's concerns with respect to the materials we may use for the retaining wall. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I appreciate what you are saying about the kids. I have kids myself, and I understand it. But I think he knew what he was buying when he bought the piece of property and to change the topography of the property that much for a play area, to me, it doesn't balance out the environment and the person. It just, that's how I feel about it. MR. STRANG: I'm just sharing with you what his position was since he can't be here tonight. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have to agree with Trustee Doherty. I cannot support this with these retaining walls and the proposed lawn area. To be honest with you, people have been living, I grew up on that creek also. People have been living on that creek for years, raising kids without retaining walls or nice grassy lawns in front and, I'm sorry, but they learn to adapt. Kids learn to adapt. And I think environmentally I can't support this retaining wall and this proposed lawn area, flat lawn area. I think it should just be left natural going down to the water. And I have no problem with just a 50-foot non-disturbed area, allowing a path to get down to the dock, obviously. Four-foot wide path. MR. STRANG: So between the edge of the terrace, assuming that's approved, from that point seaward, if you will, would remain natural, no lawn area at all; is that what is being -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Describe that again, please. MR. STRANG: From the edge of the terrace, which is directly below the deck, from that point seaward would remain a natural state, no lawn at all, even if there is no retaining wall? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If we decide it's a 50-foot non-disturbance buffer you can go from the terrace to where the line is at the non-disturbance and you can have lawn there. That can be lawn. Without the retaining wall. It can't be flat the way he wants it. MR. STRANG: That's what I'm trying to clarify. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So leave the trees there and have a nice lawn area there and then from the 50-foot mark down that would be Board of Trustees 83 June 18, 2008 undisturbed, with the exception of a four-foot wide path to get to the dock. MR. STRANG: I just to want to make sure we can have some lawn as long as it's on the natural topography that we have there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. In my in opinion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's the balance we can live with. Not what he wants. MR. STRANG: Okay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: is that acceptable or do you want to present that to your client? MR. STRANG: Well -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm asking should we table or go forward. MR. STRANG: I think we should go forward. This board is pretty steadfast in its position on this. I don't know that he could come to the table with anything else that will be palatable. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments, questions, suggestions? MS. MIKULAS: I just have a question. Why, if these recommendations are being made environmentally, to do those things, like keep it at 75 or previously with certain dock recommendations, I don't understand why they are sort of saying, okay, they're recommending this but no. Aren't they the people that look into all this environmental stuff? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sure. And once we take all the information, they don't necessarily look at it from every aspect of the project or what the applicant is looking to do. That's we are here for. Otherwise you would not need us. May make recommendations, the architect makes recommendations, the homeowners make recommendations, you do, and we ultimately take all that together and try to come up with a reasonable decision. A lot of times it means making changes, which we have done, and we are doing it now. We are eliminating a substantial portion of the application. MS. MIKULAS: I'm questioning how much their recommendations do come into play sometimes. 75 to 50. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's pretty substantial here. We are eliminating what will probably be a $20,000 retaining call. Taking it out. I mean that's substantial. MR. MIKULAS: I have a comment about the runoff from the street. After a storm like we had tonight, if you go by there and look, within ten feet of the property line the south, our southeast, their southwest property line, is the Iow point of the read. So any runoff that comes from our direction, street runoff, that comes from our direction or from the other direction ends up right at that 20-foot section. I was out there today and I don't know when the last rain was here but there was a significant wide swath of leaves and stuff that were washed out and washed on to our property. MS. MIKULAS: The other side across from us, the houses are on a hill. It comes down. MR. MIKULAS: So it's a concern whatever the Board approves in terms of building, tries to mitigate that in some respects either by lessening the amount of trees that can be cut, because essentially Board of Trustees 84 June 18, 2008 it's going to be clear cut from the access way from the other side of the proposed property to our side. Because of that width there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can I clarify what you are saying; the runoff is coming from the road on to these properties? MR. MIKULAS: It's coming from the road and ends up approximately between our two properties lines and it ends up primarily getting soaked up sometimes in the woods that are there. Once the trees are gone and everything it probably will end up on our property. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Have you spoken to the Highway Department about the road runoff there? MR. MIKULAS: I've spoke to Nassau Property Owners Association. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll bring this situation up to the storm water runoff committee to make sure it's on our list. That area. That road. MR. MIKULAS: What's happening now is the water that does make it past the front of the property is actually making it down to where our septic is and our septic is about ten feet off the property line where the proposed retaining wall is going to be. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I suggest, I'll do my side, what I can, and I suggest you talk to Peter Harris from the Highway Department and he's the one that takes care of the roads for the town and make him aware of the problem. Because it might be simple enough. TRUSTEE KING: They may be able to put some drywells in to address that situation. MR. MIKULAS: That would be the request, in lieu of that, with that not being there now and the proposed development. MS. MIKULAS: And a house going there. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The house, by code, has to retain all its runoff roof runoff on its property. MS. MIKULAS: It was the tree part we were concerned about. If I understand correctly, nothing will be touched down toward the water but between our property, there is ten feet from where the house is supposedly going to be built. I'm assuming he'll have to remove those trees. The original plan showed a retaining wall right on the property line. So we had concerns because of the runoff, before you even did your thing. That's like making a river for us. So I'm assuming the vegetation will be all removed through there, which is all treed right now. Everything is treed up to where the garage is. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Depending upon what the vegetation is, I don't know if there will be some lawn, it may actually help the drainage situation. MR. STRANG: We'll do, there will be some lawn area put in the there; there is trees that can be kept will be kept. And obviously as we has been discussed several times this evening, we have to keep our roof runoff contained in the drywells. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You'll find many times turf will actually hold the water down MS. MIKULAS: Just so something is there. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It won't be stone. It will be something. MR. STRANG: No, even the driveway is proposed to be permeable. Board of Trustees 85 June 18, 2008 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other questions, comments from the Board? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion to approve the application as written on number 16, 2000 Broadwaters with the stipulation that there be, as was on the plan, just reiterating, a 50-foot non-disturbance buffer from the water, from the edge of the wetlands, and that the retaining walls are not done as part of this project. We are not allowing the retaining walls. But everything else as drawn on the plan is good. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We need a revised plan showing the retaining walls taken off. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, a revised plan with the retaining walls taken out. And by doing that it helps to mitigate, it will mitigate it to bring it into consistency with the LWRP. MS. MIKULAS: I just have one question. The pathway down to the dock, is that allowed to be there or is that - TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, it is. It's a four-foot wide path. MS. MIKULAS: Right on the property line. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's by code, it's all right to have a four-foot wide path to access -- MS. MIKULAS: It's okay for that vegetation to be gone? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. What are you puffing there; woodchips? MR. STRANG: At this point we have not decided. We may just leave it natural just so it's a designated path to provide access. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It would be pervious, whatever it is. MR. STRANG: Yes, it would definitely be pervious, a permeable surface whatever is put there. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to adjourn. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) RECEIVED SEP 1 8 2008 '